Introduction

Orthopaedic departments are increasingly put under pressure to improve services, cut waiting lists, increase efficiency and save money. It is in the interests of patients and NHS organisations to ensure that operating theatre resources are used to best effect to ensure they are cost effective, support the achievement of waiting time targets and contribute to a more positive patient experience.

Patients in the UK are expected to have undergone surgery once decided within 18 weeks. A good system of planning and scheduling in theatre enables more work, however is largely delegated to non-clinical managerial and administrative staff. After numerous cancellations of elective cases due to incomplete pre-operative work-up, unavailable equipment and patient DNAs, we decided to introduce a surgeon-led scheduling system.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.

Introduction

Reconstructing acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty can be challenging. Small, contained defects can be successfully reconstructed with porous-coated cups without bone grafts. With larger uncontained defects, a cementless cup even with screws, will not engage with sufficient host bone to provide enough stability.

Porous titanium augments were originally designed to be used with cementless porous titanium cups, and there is a scarcity of literature on their usage in cemented cups with bone grafting.