Surfing has rapidly grown in popularity as the sport made its debut at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. Surfing injuries are becoming more relevant with the globalisation and increasing risks of the sport, but despite this, little is known about surfing injuries or prevention strategies in either the competitive or recreational surfer.

We reviewed the literature for the incidence, anatomical distribution, type and underlying mechanism of acute and overuse injuries, and discuss current preventative measures. Four online databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2020.

This review finds that skin injuries represent the highest proportion of total injuries. Acute injuries most frequently affect the head, neck and face, followed by the lower limbs. Being struck by one's own board is the most common mechanism of injury. Surfers are injured at a frequency of 0.30–6.60 injuries per 1000 hours of surfing.

Most prior studies are limited by small sample sizes, poor data collection methodology and geographical constraints. The scientific literature on surfing injuries under-represents overuse musculoskeletal injuries and the efficacy of prevention strategies for surfing-related overuse musculoskeletal injuries has not been studied. Injuries to the head and neck pose greater risks to a surfer's morbidity and mortality, yet there is no consensus on the management protocol of spinal injuries that occur in open water. Non-contact acute ligament injuries have increased as surfing manoeuvres have become more acrobatic, and overuse musculoskeletal injuries are highly correlated with paddling.

Further research is needed to establish preventative measures for both acute and overuse surfing injuries and to ensure the increasing popularity of surfing is met with an improved understanding of sport risks and safety. Specifically, we recommend research be prioritised regarding the efficacy of training programmes to prevent surfing-related overuse musculoskeletal injuries.

To date, there are no clear guidelines from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or the British Orthopaedic Association regarding the use of Autologous Blood Transfusion (ABT) drains after elective primary Total Knee Replacement (TKR). There is little evidence to comparing specifically the use of ABT drains versus no drain. The majority of local practice is based on current evidence and personal surgical experience.

We aim to assess whether the use of ABT drains effects the haemoglobin level at day 1 post-operation and thus alter the requirement for allogenic blood transfusion. In addition we aim to establish whether ABT drains reduce post-operative infection risk and length of hospital stay.

Forty-two patients undergoing elective primary TKR in West London between September 2011 and December 2011 were evaluated pre- and post-operatively. Patient records were scrutinised. The patient population was divided into those who received no drain post-operatively and those with an ABT drain where fluid was suctioned out of the knee in a closed system, filtered in a separate compartment and re-transfused into the patient.

Twenty-six patients had ABT drains and 4 (15.4%) required an allogenic blood transfusion post-operatively. Sixteen patients received no drain and 5 (31.3%) required allogenic blood. There was no statistical difference between these two groups (p=0.22). There was no statistical difference (p=0.75) in the average day 1 haemoglobin drop between the ABT drain and no drain groups with haemoglobin drops of 2.80 and 2.91 respectively. There was no statistical difference in the length of hospital stay between the 2 groups (p=0.35). There was no statistical difference (p=0.26) in infection rates between the 2 groups (2 in ABT drains Vs. 0 in no drains). Of the 2 patients who experienced complications one had cellulitis and the other had an infected haematoma, which was subsequently washed out.

The results identify little benefit in using ABT drains to reduce the requirement for allogenic blood transfusion in the post-operative period following TKR. However, due to small patient numbers transfusion rates of 31.3% in the ABT drain group Vs. 15.4% in the no drain group cannot be ignored. Therefore further studies including larger patient numbers with power calculations are required before a true observation can be identified.