Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study

The February 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Hip arthroplasty in Down syndrome; Bulk femoral autograft successful in acetabular reconstruction; Arthroplasty follow-up: is the internet the solution?; Total hip arthroplasty following acetabular fracture; Salvage arthroplasty following failed hip internal fixation; Bone banking sensible financially and clinically; Allogenic blood transfusion in arthroplasty.

The June 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: neuraxial anaesthesia and large joint arthroplasty; revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery; acetabular version and clinical outcomes in impingement surgery; hip precautions may be ineffective; implant selection and cost effectiveness; femoroacetabular impingement in the older age group; multiple revision in hip arthroplasty

The April 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Goal-directed fluid therapy in hip fracture; Liberal blood transfusion no benefit in the longer term; Repeated measures: increased accuracy or compounded errors?; Peri-acetabular osteotomy safer than perhaps thought?; Obesity and peri-acetabular osteotomy: poor bedfellows; Stress fracture in peri-acetabular osteotomy; Infection and tantalum implants; Highly crosslinked polyethylene really does work