The use of tourniquet in lower limb orthopaedic surgery is well established, however, it does have associated risks and complications and its use has been previously questioned. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain scores, analgesic requirements and time to discharge in patients undergoing tourniquet assisted and non-tourniquet assisted routine knee arthroscopy.

A total of 40 patients were randomised to tourniquet assisted and non-tourniquet assisted groups. Arthroscopy was performed using a standardised local anaesthetic infiltration in the non-tourniquet assisted group. All patients completed a postoperative pain score.

Findings demonstrated that the incidence and mean scores for postoperative pain were significantly lower in the non-tourniquet group. Additionally postoperative analgesic requirements of patients in the non-tourniquet group were also found to be significantly lower and time spent in recovery and on the ward postoperatively was also lower in the non-tourniquet group compared to the tourniquet group.

On the basis of the results in our study we recommend abolishing the use of tourniquet in routine knee arthroscopies in the virgin knee.

Trigger finger is one of the most common problems presenting to hand clinics in the UK. Traumatic and compressive forces created through digital movement leads to thickening of the flexor tendon sheath. The most successful methods used to treat trigger finger are corticosteroid injection and surgical release. The ring, thumb and middle finger are the most frequently affected digits. The incidence of multiple digits being affected is between 20% and 24%, with a higher incidence in Diabetes Mellitus sufferers. We report a case of failed injection therapy in a patient with multiple trigger digits, review the literature and advocate the use of surgical release as a first line treatment option in those patients with multiply involved digits.

Introduction: A single hip screw is the recommended method of fixation for slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE). Current practice favours the placement of the screw in the centre of the femoral head on both anteroposterior and lateral planes to avoid the risks of chondrolysis and avascular necrosis (AVN).

Aims: To investigate the correlation between different positions of the screw in the femoral head and the prevalence of AVN, chondrolysis, late slippage, and the time to epiphyseal closure.

Methods: The clinical notes and radiographs of 38 consecutive patients (61 hips), who underwent single screw fixation for SUFE, were evaluated retrospectively with a mean follow up of 36 months. Two way ANOVA and post hoc test was performed to analyse the correlation between the different variables and the outcome, at 5% significance level.

Results: There were 16 acute slips, 18 chronic slips and 10 acute on chronic slips. 17 slips were treated prophylactically. Mild slip was encountered in 39 hips, moderate in 4 and severe in 1 hip. Central-Central position was only achieved in 51% of cases. The most significant results of the study were as follows. I: No significant difference between the time to epiphyseal closure and the position of the screw. II. No late slippage or chondrolysis was observed in our series.

Conclusion: Our results showed that the position of the screw, other than in the centre of the femoral head, has the ability to provide physeal stability and has no correlation with the timing to closure of the epiphysis and the risk of avascular necrosis or chondrolysis. We therefore recommend that other positions be considered if the “optimal central-central position” is not initially achieved specifically for the treatment of mild SUFE as the potential hazards from several attempts to achieve the optimum position outweigh the benefits.

Purpose of study: A single dynamic hip screw is the recommended method of fixation for slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE). Current practice favours placement of the screw in the centre of the femoral head on both anteroposterior and lateral planes. This study investigated screw placement in the femoral head for SUFE and the prevalence of AVN, chondrolysis, late slippage, and time to physeal closure.

Method: Clinical notes and radiographs of 38 consecutive patients (61 hips), who underwent single screw fixation for SUFE, were evaluated retrospectively with a minimum follow up of 24 months (24–56). Two way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed to analyse the correlation between the different variables and the outcome, at a 5% significance level.

Results: There were 16 acute slips, 18 chronic slips and 10 acute on chronic slips. 17 slips were treated prophylactically. Mild slip was noted in 39 hips, moderate in 4 and severe in 1 hip. A central-central position was only achieved in 50% of cases. No significant difference between the time to physeal closure and the screw position was found. No late slippage, AVN or chondrolysis occurred in this series.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that positions of the screw, other than in the centre of the femoral head, provide adequate stability. There is no correlation between screw position and the time to physeal closure, the risk of avascular necrosis or chondrolysis. We recommend that positions other than the “optimal central-central position” be accepted if not initially achieved, especially for mild SUFE. The potential hazards from several attempts to achieve the optimum position outweigh the benefits.