Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems across the globe in 2020. There were concerns surrounding early reports of increased mortality among patients undergoing emergency or non-urgent surgery. We report the morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures during the UK first stage of the pandemic. Methods. Institutional review board approval was obtained for a review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures between March and May 2020 at a specialist orthopaedic centre in the UK. Data included diagnoses, comorbidities, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, length of stay, and complications. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, medical and surgical complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge. The data collated were compared with series from the preceding three months. Results. There were 167 elective procedures performed in the first three weeks of the study period, prior to the first national lockdown, and 57 emergency procedures thereafter. Three patients (1.3%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. There was one death (0.45%) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection after an emergency procedure. None of the patients developed complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection after elective arthroplasty. There was no observed spike in complications during in-hospital stay or in the early postoperative period. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between pre-COVID-19 and peri-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.624). We observed a higher number of emergency procedures performed during the pandemic within our institute. Conclusion. An international cohort has reported 30-day mortality as 28.8% following orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic. There are currently no reports on clinical outcomes of patients treated with lower limb reconstructive surgery during the same period. While an effective vaccine is developed and widely accepted, it is very likely that SARS-CoV2 infection remains endemic. We believe that this report will help guide future restoration planning here in the UK and abroad. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):323–329

Aims. Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a useful orthopaedic procedure employed to lengthen and reshape bones by stimulating bone formation through controlled slow stretching force. Despite its promising applications, difficulties are still encountered. Our previous study demonstrated that pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment significantly enhances bone mineralization and neovascularization, suggesting its potential application. The current study compared a new, high slew rate (HSR) PEMF signal, with different treatment durations, with the standard Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved signal, to determine if HSR PEMF is a better alternative for bone formation augmentation. Methods. The effects of a HSR PEMF signal with three daily treatment durations (0.5, one, and three hours/day) were investigated in an established rat DO model with comparison of an FDA-approved classic signal (three hrs/day). PEMF treatments were applied to the rats daily for 35 days, starting from the distraction phase until termination. Radiography, micro-CT (μCT), biomechanical tests, and histological examinations were employed to evaluate the quality of bone formation. Results. All rats tolerated the treatment well and no obvious adverse effects were found. By comparison, the HSR signal (three hrs/day) treatment group achieved the best healing outcome, in that endochondral ossification and bone consolidation were enhanced. In addition, HSR signal treatment (one one hr/day) had similar effects to treatment using the classic signal (three three hrs/day), indicating that treatment duration could be significantly shortened with the HSR signal. Conclusion. HSR signal may significantly enhance bone formation and shorten daily treatment duration in DO, making it a potential candidate for a new clinical protocol for patients undergoing DO treatments. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):767–779

Aims. To evaluate safety outcomes and patient satisfaction of the re-introduction of elective orthopaedic surgery on ‘green’ (non-COVID-19) sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A strategy consisting of phased relaxation of clinical comorbidity criteria was developed. Patients from the orthopaedic waiting list were selected according to these criteria and observed recommended preoperative isolation protocols. Surgery was performed at green sites (two local private hospitals) under the COVID-19 NHS contract. The first 100 consecutive patients that met the Phase 1 criteria and underwent surgery were included. In hospital and postoperative complications with specific enquiry as to development of COVID-19 symptoms or need and outcome for COVID-19 testing at 14 days and six weeks was recorded. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at 14 days postoperatively. Results. There were 54 females and 46 males (mean age 44 years, mean body mass index (BMI) 25.6 kg/m. 2. ). In all, 56 patients underwent major orthopaedic procedures. There were no exclusions. One patient had a postoperative positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test but had no typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection and no clinical sequelae. 99% of patients were satisfied with the process and 98% would recommend undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery in the study period. Conclusion. In an environment with appropriate infrastructure, patient selection, isolation, screening, and testing, elective orthopaedic surgery is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated with high patient satisfaction. Further follow-up is required to establish that safety is maintained as the clinical restrictions are eased with the phased approach described. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:450–456

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228

Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567

Aims. A recent report from France suggested an association between the use of cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral heads in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. CoCr is a commonly used material in orthopaedic implants. If the reported association is causal, the consequences would be significant given the millions of joint arthroplasties and other orthopaedic procedures in which CoCr is used annually. We examined whether CoCr-containing THAs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart outcomes, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders in a large national database. Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry was linked to NHS English hospital inpatient episodes for 374,359 primary THAs with up to 14.5 years' follow-up. We excluded any patients with bilateral THAs, knee arthroplasties, indications other than osteoarthritis, aged under 55 years, and diagnosis of one or more outcome of interest before THA. Implants were grouped as either containing CoCr or not containing CoCr. The association between implant construct and the risk of all-cause mortality and incident heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders was examined. Results. There were 158,677 individuals (42.4%) with an implant containing CoCr. There were 47,963 deaths, 27,332 heart outcomes, 35,720 cancers, and 22,025 neurodegenerative disorders. There was no evidence of an association between patients with CoCr implants and higher rates of any of the outcomes. Conclusion. CoCr-containing THAs did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, or clinically meaningful heart outcomes, cancer, or neurodegenerative disorders into the second decade post-implantation. Our findings will help reassure clinicians and the increasing number of patients receiving primary THA worldwide that the use of CoCr-containing implants is not associated with significant adverse systemic effects. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):359–367

Introduction. The aim of this study is to report the 30 day COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality of patients assessed as SARS-CoV-2 negative who underwent emergency or urgent orthopaedic surgery in the NHS during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method. A retrospective, single centre, observational cohort study of all patients undergoing surgery between 17 March 2020 and 3May 2020 was performed. Outcomes were stratified by British Orthopaedic Association COVID-19 Patient Risk Assessment Tool. Patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at the time of surgery were excluded. Results. Overall, 96 patients assessed as negative for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of surgery underwent 100 emergency or urgent orthopaedic procedures during the study period. Within 30 days of surgery 9.4% of patients (n = 9) were found to be SARS-CoV-2 positive by nasopharyngeal swab. The overall 30 day mortality rate across the whole cohort of patients during this period was 3% (n = 3). Of those testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 66% (n = 6) developed significant COVID-19 related complications and there was a 33% 30-day mortality rate (n = 3). Overall, the 30-day mortality in patients classified as BOA low or medium risk (n = 69) was 0%, whereas in those classified as high or very high risk (n = 27) it was 11.1%. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgery in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients who transition to positive within 30 days of surgery carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. In lower risk groups, the overall risk of becoming SARS-CoV-2 positive, and subsequently developing a significant postoperative related complication, was low even during the peak of the pandemic. In addition to ensuring patients are SARS-CoV-2 negative at the time of surgery it is important that the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 is minimized through their recovery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:474–480

Aims. Due to widespread cancellations in elective orthopaedic procedures, the number of patients on waiting list for surgery is rising. We aim to determine and quantify if disparities exist between inpatient and day-case orthopaedic waiting list numbers; we also aim to determine if there is a ‘hidden burden’ that already exists due to reductions in elective secondary care referrals. Methods. Retrospective data were collected between 1 April 2020 and 31 December 2020 and compared with the same nine-month period the previous year. Data collected included surgeries performed (day-case vs inpatient), number of patients currently on the orthopaedic waiting list (day-case vs inpatient), and number of new patient referrals from primary care and therapy services. Results. There was a 52.8% reduction in our elective surgical workload in 2020. The majority of surgeries performed in 2020 were day case surgeries (739; 86.6%) with 47.2% of these performed in the independent sector on a ‘lift and shift’ service. The total number of patients on our waiting lists has risen by 30.1% in just 12 months. As we have been restricted in performing inpatient surgery, the inpatient waiting lists have risen by 73.2%, compared to a 1.6% rise in our day-case waiting list. New patient referral from primary care and therapy services have reduced from 3,357 in 2019 to 1,722 in 2020 (49.7% reduction). Conclusion. This study further exposes the increasing number of patients on orthopaedic waiting lists. We observed disparities between inpatient and day-case waiting lists, with dramatic increases in the number of inpatients on the waiting lists. The number of new patient referrals has decreased, and we predict an influx of referrals as the pandemic eases, further adding to the pressure on inpatient waiting lists. Robust planning and allocation of adequate resources is essential to deal with this backlog. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):530–534

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529

Obesity is a risk factor for complications following many orthopaedic procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether obesity was an independent risk factor increasing the rate of complications following periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and to determine whether radiographic correction after PAO was affected by obesity. . We retrospectively collected demographic, clinical and radiographic data on 280 patients (231 women; 82.5% and 49 men; 17.5%) who were followed for a mean of 48 months (12 to 60) after PAO. A total of 65 patients (23.2%) were obese (body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m. 2. ). Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that BMI was an independent risk factor associated with the severity of the complications. The average probability of a patient developing a major complication was 22% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.78 to 38.21) for an obese patient compared with 3% (95% CI 1.39 to 6.58) for a non-obese patient The odds of a patient developing a major complication were 11 times higher (95% CI 4.71 to 17.60, p <  0.0001) for an obese compared with a non-obese patient. . Following PAO surgery, there was no difference in radiographic correction between obese and non-obese patients. PAO procedures in obese patients correct the deformity effectively but are associated with an increased rate of complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:29–34

Radiological imaging is necessary in a wide variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations. The evolving orthopaedic workforce includes an increasing number of pregnant workers. Current legislation in the United Kingdom, Europe and United States allows them to choose their degree of participation, if any, with fluoroscopic procedures. For those who wish to engage in radiation-prone procedures, specific regulations apply to limit the radiation dose to the pregnant worker and unborn child. This paper considers those aspects of radiation protection, the potential effects of exposure to radiation in pregnancy and the dose of radiation from common orthopaedic procedures, which are important for safe clinical practice

Aims . Few studies have evaluated the relationship between patients’ pre-operative expectations and the outcome of orthopaedic procedures. Our aim was to determine the effect of expectations on the outcome after primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). We hypothesised that patients with greater expectations would have better outcomes. . Patients and Methods. Patients undergoing primary anatomical TSA completed the Hospital for Special Surgery’s Shoulder Expectations Survey pre-operatively. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS), Short-Form-36 (SF-36), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, fatigue, and general health scores were also collected pre-operatively and two years post-operatively. Pearson correlations were used to assess the relationship between the number of expectations and the outcomes. Differences in outcomes between those with higher and lower levels of expectations for each expectation were assessed by independent samples t-test. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to control for potential confounding factors. Results. A total of 67 patients were evaluated two years post-operatively. Most parameters of outcome improved significantly from baseline and most patients were satisfied. A greater number of expectations was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the ASES score (p = 0.02). In the multivariable analysis, a greater number of expectations was an independent predictor of better ASES, VAS and SF-36 scores, as well as improvements in ASES and VAS pain scores (p < 0.05). Greater expectations for many specific expectation questions were significantly associated with better outcomes (p < 0.05). Conclusion. TSA is a successful procedure with significant improvements in outcome, and greater pre-operative expectations are associated with better outcomes. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1190–6

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of total knee replacement in patients receiving continuous warfarin therapy. . We identified 24 consecutive patients receiving long-term warfarin therapy who underwent total knee replacement between 2006 and 2008 and compared them with a group of age- and gender-matched patients not on long-term anticoagulation. Primary observations were changes in haemoglobin, transfusion rates and complications. Secondary observations were fluctuations in the international normalised ratio (INR) and post-operative range of movement. . There was no significant difference between the two groups in pre- or post-operative haemoglobin, incidence of transfusion or incidence of post-operative complications. There were no surgical delays due to a high INR level. The mean change in INR during the peri-operative phase was minimal (mean 0.4; . sd. 0.7). There was no significant difference in the range of movement between the two groups after day two post-operatively. Current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend bridging therapy for high-risk patients receiving oral anticoagulation and undergoing major orthopaedic procedures. We have shown that a safe alternative is to continue the steady-state warfarin peri-operatively in patients on long-term anticoagulation requiring total knee replacement

Robots have been used in surgery since the late 1980s. Orthopaedic surgery began to incorporate robotic technology in 1992, with the introduction of ROBODOC, for the planning and performance of total hip replacement. The use of robotic systems has subsequently increased, with promising short-term radiological outcomes when compared with traditional orthopaedic procedures. Robotic systems can be classified into two categories: autonomous and haptic (or surgeon-guided). Passive surgery systems, which represent a third type of technology, have also been adopted recently by orthopaedic surgeons. While autonomous systems have fallen out of favour, tactile systems with technological improvements have become widely used. Specifically, the use of tactile and passive robotic systems in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has addressed some of the historical mechanisms of failure of non-robotic UKR. These systems assist with increasing the accuracy of the alignment of the components and produce more consistent ligament balance. Short-term improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes have increased the popularity of robot-assisted UKR. Robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery has the potential for improving surgical outcomes. We discuss the different types of robotic systems available for use in orthopaedics and consider the indication, contraindications and limitations of these technologies

Arthroscopy of the knee is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures worldwide. Large-volume outcome data have not previously been available for English NHS patients. Prospectively collected admissions data, routinely collected on every English NHS patient, were analysed to determine the rates of complications within 30 days (including re-operation and re-admission), 90-day symptomatic venous thromboembolism and all-cause mortality. There were 301 701 operations performed between 2005 and 2010 – an annual incidence of 9.9 per 10 000 English population. Of these, 16 552 (6%) underwent ligament reconstruction and 106 793 (35%) underwent meniscal surgery. The 30-day re-admission rate was 0.64% (1662) and 30-day wound complication rate was 0.26% (677). The overall 30-day re-operation rate was 0.40% (1033) and the 90-day pulmonary embolism rate was 0.08% (230), of which six patients died. 90-day mortality was 0.02% (47). Age < 40 years, male gender and ligament reconstruction were significantly associated with an increased rate of 30-day re-admission and unplanned re-operation. In addition, a significant increase in 30-day admission rates were seen with Charlson comorbidity scores of 1 (p = 0.037) and ≥ 2 (p <  0.001) compared with scores of 0, and medium volume units compared with high volume units (p < 0.001). Complications following arthroscopy of the knee are rare. It is a safe procedure, which in the majority of cases is performed as day case surgery. These data can be used for quality benchmarking, in terms of consent, consultant re-validation and individual unit performance

Allografts of bone from the femoral head are often used in orthopaedic procedures. Although the donated heads are thoroughly tested microscopically before release by the bone bank, some surgeons take additional cultures in the operating theatre before implantation. There is no consensus about the need to take these cultures. We retrospectively assessed the clinical significance of the implantation of positive-cultured bone allografts. The contamination rate at retrieval of the allografts was 6.4% in our bone bank. Intra-operative cultures were taken from 426 femoral head allografts before implantation; 48 (11.3%) had a positive culture. The most frequently encountered micro-organism was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Deep infection occurred in two of the 48 patients (4.2%). In only one was it likely that the same micro-organism caused the contamination and the subsequent infection. In our study, the rate of infection in patients receiving positive-cultured allografts at implantation was not higher than the overall rate of infection in allograft surgery suggesting that the positive cultures at implantation probably represent contamination and that the taking of additional cultures is not useful

Objectives. Surgeons face a substantial risk of infection because of the occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens (BBPs) from patients undergoing high-risk orthopaedic procedures. This study aimed to determine the seroprevalence of four BBPs among patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in Shanghai, China. In addition, we evaluated the significance of pre-operative screening by calculating a cost-to-benefit ratio. Methods. A retrospective observational study of pre-operative screening for BBPs, including hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV and HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Treponema pallidum (TP), was conducted for sequential patients in the orthopaedic department of a large urban teaching hospital between 01 January 2009 and 30 May 2016. Medical records were analysed to verify the seroprevalence of these BBPs among the patients stratified by age, gender, local origin, type of surgery, history of previous transfusion and marital status. Results. Of the subjects who underwent arthroplasty surgery in our institution, pre-operative screening tests were available for 96.1% (11 609 patients). The seroprevalence of HBV, HCV, HIV and TP was 5.47%, 0.45%, 0.08% and 3.6%, respectively. A total of 761 seropositive cases (68.4%) were previously undiagnosed. Pre-operative screening for HIV resulted in a low cost to benefit ratio, followed by HCV and HBV. Conclusion. Routine HCV and HIV screening prior to joint arthroplasty is not a cost-effective strategy. Considering the high rate of undiagnosed patients and the shortage of protective options, targeted pre-operative screening for HBV and syphilis should be considered for the protection of healthcare workers in China who have not been vaccinated. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2017;6:566–571

Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical practice and research. Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome. Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients, using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation protocol. This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5

We report a double-blind study of the effectiveness of indomethacin suppositories in the relief of postoperative pain and the reduction in demand for opiate analgesia following orthopaedic procedures

Templates are used in the preoperative planning of many orthopaedic procedures. The magnification of the bones on preoperative radiographs can vary despite using standardised radiological techniques. Templates will give misleading measurements unless this magnification is quantified. A coin may be used to calculate the magnification, with significant improvement in the accuracy of templating (p = 0.05). A group of patients undergoing uncemented arthroplasty of the hip was at high risk for intraoperative fracture of the femur because the magnification of the radiograph was larger than that of the template