Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. . In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41

Aims

Chronic osteomyelitis may recur if dead space management, after excision of infected bone, is inadequate. This study describes the results of a strategy for the management of deep bone infection and evaluates a new antibiotic-loaded biocomposite in the eradication of infection from bone defects.

This paper offers a summary of the ethical guide for the European orthopaedic community; the full report will be published in the EFORT Journal.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1130–2.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of laboratory-based simulator training on the ability of surgical trainees to perform diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee.

A total of 20 junior orthopaedic trainees were randomised to receive either a fixed protocol of arthroscopic simulator training on a bench-top knee simulator or no additional training. Motion analysis was used to assess performance objectively. Each trainee then received traditional instruction and demonstrations of diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee in theatre before performing the procedure under the supervision of a blinded consultant trainer. Their performance was assessed using a procedure-based assessment from the Orthopaedic Competence Assessment Project and a five-point global rating assessment scale.

In theatre the simulator-trained group performed significantly better than the untrained group using the Orthopaedic Competence Assessment Project score (p = 0.0007) and assessment by the global rating scale (p = 0.0011), demonstrating the transfer of psychomotor skills from simulator training to arthroscopy in the operating theatre. This has implications for the planning of future training curricula.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of intermittent mechanical compression combined with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, against either mechanical compression or pharmacological prophylaxis in preventing deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement. A total of six randomised controlled trials, evaluating a total of 1399 patients, were identified. In knee arthroplasty, the rate of DVT was reduced from 18.7% with anticoagulation alone to 3.7% with combined modalities (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, p = 0.03; number needed to treat: seven). There was moderate, albeit non-significant, heterogeneity (I² = 42%). In hip replacement, there was a non-significant reduction in DVT from 8.7% with mechanical compression alone to 7.2% with additional pharmacological prophylaxis (RR 0.84) and a significant reduction in DVT from 9.7% with anticoagulation alone to 0.9% with additional mechanical compression (RR 0.17, p < 0.001; number needed to treat: 12), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The included studies had insufficient power to demonstrate an effect on pulmonary embolism.

We conclude that the addition of intermittent mechanical leg compression augments the efficacy of anticoagulation in preventing DVT in patients undergoing both knee and hip replacement. Further research on the role of combined modalities in thromboprophylaxis in joint replacement and in other high-risk situations, such as fracture of the hip, is warranted.

Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading information, which might affect the management of patients. The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid. We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded. Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological, case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation inaccuracy rate.

We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy.