Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most feared and challenging complications following total knee arthroplasty. We provide a detailed description of our current understanding regarding the management of PJI of the knee, including diagnostic aids, pre-operative planning, surgical treatment, and outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):20–9.

Intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be effective in reducing blood loss and the need for transfusion after joint replacement. Recently, there has been interest in applying it topically before the closure of surgical wounds. This has the advantages of ease of application, maximum concentration at the site of bleeding, minimising its systemic absorption and, consequently, concerns about possible side-effects.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 14 randomised controlled trials (11 in knee replacement, two in hip replacement and one in both) which investigated the effect of topical TXA on blood loss and rates of transfusion. Topical TXA significantly reduced the rate of blood transfusion (total knee replacement: risk ratio (RR) 4.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.02 to 6.72; p < 0.001 (nine trials, I² = 0%); total hip replacement: RR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.32 to 4.97, p = 0.004 (one trial)). The rate of thromboembolic events with topical TXA were similar to those found with a placebo. Indirect comparison of placebo-controlled trials of topical and intravenous TXA indicates that topical administration is superior to the intravenous route.

In conclusion, topical TXA is an effective and safe method of reducing the need for blood transfusion after total knee and hip replacement. Further research is required to find its optimum dose for topical use.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1005–15.

The surgical community is plagued with a reputation for both failing to engage and to deliver on clinical research. This is in part due to the absence of a strong research culture, however it is also due to a multitude of barriers encountered in clinical research; particularly those involving surgical interventions. ‘Trauma’ amplifies these barriers, owing to the unplanned nature of care, unpredictable work patterns, the emergent nature of treatment and complexities in the consent process. This review discusses the barriers to clinical research in surgery, with a particular emphasis on trauma. It considers how barriers may be overcome, with the aim to facilitate future successful clinical research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:123–9.

Given the growing prevalence of obesity around the world and its association with osteoarthritis of the knee, orthopaedic surgeons need to be familiar with the management of the obese patient with degenerative knee pain. The precise mechanism by which obesity leads to osteoarthritis remains unknown, but is likely to be due to a combination of mechanical, humoral and genetic factors.

Weight loss has clear medical benefits for the obese patient and seems to be a logical way of relieving joint pain associated with degenerative arthritis. There are a variety of ways in which this may be done including diet and exercise, and treatment with drugs and bariatric surgery. Whether substantial weight loss can delay or even reverse the symptoms associated with osteoarthritis remains to be seen.

Surgery for osteoarthritis in the obese patient can be technically more challenging and carries a risk of additional complications. Substantial weight loss before undertaking total knee replacement is advisable. More prospective studies that evaluate the effect of significant weight loss on the evolution of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee are needed so that orthopaedic surgeons can treat this patient group appropriately.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct limited resources more effectively.

We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence in clinical practice.