Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure from rupture, attenuation, or malposition may cause recurrent subjective instability and objective laxity, and occurs in 3% to 22% of ACL reconstruction (ACLr) procedures. Revision ACLr is often indicated to restore knee stability, improve knee function, and facilitate return to cutting and pivoting activities. Prior to reconstruction, a thorough clinical and diagnostic evaluation is required to identify factors that may have predisposed an individual to recurrent ACL injury, appreciate concurrent intra-articular pathology, and select the optimal graft for revision reconstruction. Single-stage revision can be successful, although a staged approach may be used when optimal tunnel placement is not possible due to the position and/or widening of previous tunnels. Revision ACLr often involves concomitant procedures such as meniscal/chondral treatment, lateral extra-articular augmentation, and/or osteotomy. Although revision ACLr reliably restores knee stability and function, clinical outcomes and reoperation rates are worse than for primary ACLr. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):474–480

We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Payments by the NHS Litigation Authority continue to rise each year, and reflect an increase in successful claims for negligence against NHS Trusts. Information about the reasons for which Trusts are sued in the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery is scarce.

We analysed 130 consecutive cases of alleged clinical negligence in which the senior author had been requested to act as an expert witness between 2004 and 2006, and received information on the outcome of 97 concluded cases from the relevant solicitors. None of the 97 cases proceeded to a court hearing. Overall, 55% of cases were abandoned by the claimants’ solicitors, and the remaining 45% were settled out of court. The cases were settled for sums ranging from £4500 to £2.7 million, the median settlement being £45 000. The cases that were settled out of court were usually the result of delay in treatment or diagnosis, or because of substandard surgical technique.