Background: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in widespread cancellation of elective orthopaedic procedures. The guidance coming from multiple sources frequently has been difficult to assimilate as well as dynamic, with constantly changing standards. We seek to communicate the current guidelines published by each state, to discuss the impact of these guidelines on orthopaedic surgery, and to provide the general framework used to determine which procedures have been postponed at our institution. Methods: An internet search was used to identify published state guidelines regarding the cancellation of elective procedures, with a publication cutoff of March 24, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Data collected included the number of states providing guidance to cancel elective procedures and which states provided specific guidance in determining which procedures should continue being performed as well as to orthopaedic-specific guidance. Results: Thirty states published guidance regarding the discontinuation of elective procedures, and 16 states provided a definition of “elective” procedures or specific guidance for determining which procedures should continue to be performed. Only 5 states provided guidelines specifically mentioning orthopaedic surgery; of those, 4 states explicitly allowed for trauma-related procedures and 4 states provided guidance against performing arthroplasty. Ten states provided guidelines allowing for the continuation of oncological procedures. Conclusions: Few states have published guidelines specific to orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 outbreak, leaving hospital systems and surgeons with the responsibility of balancing the benefits of surgery with the risks to public health.

Background: Orthopaedic trauma etiologies are a common cause for amputation. Targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) is a technique aimed at reducing or preventing pain and improving function. The purpose of this study was to examine postoperative phantom limb pain and residual limb pain following TMR in orthopaedic trauma amputees. In addition, postoperative rates of opioid and neuromodulator medication use were evaluated. Methods: Twenty-five patients (60% male) prospectively enrolled in a single-institution study and underwent TMR at the time of major limb amputation (48% nonmilitary trauma, 32% infection secondary to previous nonmilitary trauma, and 20% other, also secondary to trauma). Phantom limb pain and residual limb pain scores, pain temporality, prosthetic use, and unemployment status were assessed at the time of follow-up. The use of opioid and neuromodulator medications both preoperatively and postoperatively was also examined. Results: At a mean follow-up of 14.1 months, phantom limb pain and residual limb pain scores were low, with 92% of the patients reporting no pain or brief intermittent pain only. Pain scores were higher overall for male patients compared with female patients (p < 0.05) except for 1 subscore, and higher in patients who underwent amputation for infection (odds ratio, 9.75; p = 0.01). Sixteen percent of the patients reported opioid medication use at the time of the latest documented follow-up. Fifty percent of the patients who were taking opioids preoperatively discontinued use postoperatively, while 100% of the patients who were not taking opioids preoperatively discontinued postoperative use. None of the patients who were taking neuromodulator medication preoperatively discontinued use postoperatively (0 of 5). The median time to neuromodulator medication discontinuation was 14.6 months, with female patients taking longer than male patients (23 compared with 7 months; p = 0.02). At the time of the latest follow-up, the rate of reported prosthetic use was 85% for lower-extremity and 40% for upper-extremity amputees, with a rate of unemployment due to disability of 36%. Conclusions: The use of TMR in orthopaedic trauma amputees was associated with low overall pain scores at 2-year follow-up, decreased overall opioid and neuromodulator medication use, and an overall high rate of daily prosthetic use. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Case: A 20-year-old man with a history of right lower extremity fibular hemimelia previously treated with PRECICE femoral nail lengthening presented with a broken magnetic nail and a displaced fracture through an ununited distraction osteogenesis site. Using a combination of techniques, we removed the broken implant while maintaining the achieved limb length and preserving the native biology without bone grafting. Conclusion: The unique challenges associated with the removal of a broken PRECICE femoral nail are described, with a technique for implant removal that preserves the achieved length, the innate biology of the distraction osteogenesis site, and promoting union without bone grafting.

Most of the current orthopaedic residents are considered Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and are often trained by attending surgeons who are from Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) or the Baby Boomer generation (born between 1946 and 1964). The Generation X orthopaedic surgeons were largely trained by Baby Boomers who were very demanding of their trainees and expected excellence. The Baby Boomers had been inspired, mentored, and trained by the Greatest Generation (born between 1901 and 1927). Baby Boomers took nothing for granted and nothing was given to them on a silver platter. Generation X was trained under these premises and was expected to abide by similar values. Regarding the next generation of residents, current faculty hope to instill the same qualities that had been instilled in them during their training. This value transference sometimes presents a challenge because of the differences in attitudes and perspectives that may exist between Millennial residents and their predecessors regarding work-life balance, teaching styles, the regulation of duty hours, and feedback assessments. These differences require an evolution in the methods of surgical education to optimize the educational benefit and ensure good will and rapport between the generations. Trainees and faculty alike have a responsibility to understand each other’s differences and come together to ensure that knowledge, experience, values, and skill sets are effectively passed on to a new generation of orthopaedic surgeons.