Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history, querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose. Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue damage and hence poor clinical outcome.

Biochemical markers of bone-turnover have long been used to complement the radiological assessment of patients with metabolic bone disease. Their implementation in daily clinical practice has been helpful in the understanding of the pathogenesis of osteoporosis, the selection of the optimal dose and the understanding of the progression of the onset and resolution of treatment. Since they are derived from both cortical and trabecular bone, they reflect the metabolic activity of the entire skeleton rather than that of individual cells or the process of mineralisation.

Quantitative changes in skeletal-turnover can be assessed easily and non-invasively by the measurement of bone-turnover markers. They are commonly subdivided into three categories; 1) bone-resorption markers, 2) osteoclast regulatory proteins and 3) bone-formation markers. Because of the rapidly accumulating new knowledge of bone matrix biochemistry, attempts have been made to use them in the interpretation and characterisation of various stages of the healing of fractures. Early knowledge of the individual progress of a fracture could help to avoid delayed or nonunion by enabling modification of the host’s biological response.

The levels of bone-turnover markers vary throughout the course of fracture repair with their rates of change being dependent on the size of the fracture and the time that it will take to heal. However, their short-term biological variability, the relatively low bone specificity exerted, given that the production and destruction of collagen is not limited to bone, as well as the influence of the host’s metabolism on their concentration, produce considerable intra- and inter-individual variability in their interpretation. Despite this, the possible role of bone-turnover markers in the assessment of progression to union, the risks of delayed or nonunion and the impact of innovations to accelerate fracture healing must not be ignored.

Fractures of the proximal interphalangeal joint include a wide spectrum of injuries, from stable avulsion fractures to complex fracture-dislocations. Stability of the joint is paramount in determining the appropriate treatment, which should aim to facilitate early mobilisation and restoration of function.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice.

Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive.

Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged.

The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied.

Complex regional pain syndrome is characterised by an exaggerated response to injury in a limb with intense prolonged pain, vasomotor disturbance, delayed functional recovery and trophic changes. This review describes the current knowledge of the condition and outlines the methods of treatment available with particular emphasis on the knee.