We reported the first single surgeon series comparing outcome of microscopic and open primary single level unilateral lumbar decompression or discectomy. We aimed to determine any difference in outcomes between the two techniques.

Forty-six decompressions were performed with use of an operating microscope (microscopic), and forty without (open) at two different hospitals. All procedures were performed by the senior author. Information was obtained by analysis of the patients' notes. The average age of the patients in both groups was comparable. Operating time was shorter in the microscopic group (68min, range 30-130) compared to the open group (83 mins, range 30-180). Dural tear rate was 4.3% with use of a microscope (0% symptomatic dural tear rate) and 7.5% without (2.5% symptomatic dural tear rate). Nerve damage incidence was 0% with use of a microscope and 5% (two patients) without. One of these was a neurapraxia and the patient made a full recovery. Wound infection rates, diagnosed on grounds of clinical suspicion, were 4.3% and 2.5% for microscopic and open respectively. There were no incidences of deep infection or post-operative discitis. Average inpatient stay was under 48 hours in both groups.

Using the modified Macnab criteria, results using the microscope were 0% poor, 14% fair, 32% good, and 55% excellent. The results for the open group were 0% poor, 10% fair, 37% good and 53% excellent. Average follow-up was six months (1-19) for the microscope group, and seven months (2-16) for the open group.

We conclude that primary single level unilateral lumbar decompressive surgery, performed without the use of a microscope, has a higher dural tear rate than the same surgery performed with the benefit of an operating microscope. Surgical time and incidence of nerve damage are also reduced by use of the microscope.

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial issue and many disagree about the optimum method or even if it is required at all.

We present a new method of performing meta-analysis incorporating studies with both experimental and observational study designs. We have developed a model that compares study cohorts of several different methods of thromboprophylaxis with a simulated matched control group whose variance helps to adjust for bias. This allows meaningful comparisons between studies and treatments that have not been directly compared.

We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1981 to October 2004. Studies where more than one method of prophylaxis was used were excluded from analysis. For each individual method of prophylaxis, data was extracted, combined and converted to give estimates of the rates of symptomatic, proximal DVT, fatal PE and major bleeding events. We identified 1242 studies of which 203 met the inclusion criteria for further analysis. This represented the results of over fifty thousand studied patients. We expressed the results for the different prophylactic methods as odds ratios compared to no prophylaxis.

All methods showed a beneficial effect in reducing VTEs apart from stockings and aspirin which showed an increase in the number of PE events. These results are particularly interesting when viewed from the standpoint of an individual NHS hospital trust that performs around 500 hip and knee replacements per year. Over a 5 year period, the more effective methods of prophylaxis prevented between 15 and 40 symptomatic DVTs and up to 3 fatal PEs compared to no treatment. However, they cause between 8 and 40 more major bleeding events. We do not know the proportion of these major bleeding events that are fatal.

Subacromial corticosteroid injection has been shown to be effective in treating impingement syndrome. The exact mechanism of action is not clear but it may be due to its anti-inflammatory properties. However, there are potential side effects of steroid injection including tendon weakening, dermal atrophy and infection. NSAIDs may offer similar anti-inflammatory properties but without the side effects of corticosteroids. Tenoxicam is a long-acting water soluble NSAID and is available without irritant preservatives. Studies have shown that peri-articular Tenocixam injection was useful in treating painful shoulders and local tolerability was good.

The aim of this study is to carry out a blinded ran-domised controlled study comparing subacromial Tenoxicam injection (NSAID) against methylprednisolone (steroid) injection in patients with clinical subacromial impingement syndrome.

The study protocol was approved by local research ethics committee. Patients over 18 with a clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome were considered eligible to this study. Patients with other known causes of shoulder pain, contraindication or sensitivity to NSAID and pregnant patients were excluded.

Three functional outcome measures were used – Constant-Murley Shoulder Score, DASH and the Oxford Shoulder Score. The patients completed all three outcome measures before and 2, 4 and 6 weeks after the subacromial injection. Simple randomisation method was used and blinded to both researcher and the patient.

58 patients randomised into two groups were reviewed at the end of six weeks. Patients treated with subacromial steroid injection had a much better outcome compared to patients treated with subacromial tenoxicam injection and this difference was highly significant (p< .003)

In conclusion, patients with subacromial impingement syndrome have a better clinical outcome when treated with subacromial steroid injection than NSAID injection.

Hip and knee arthroplasty has been associated with relatively high rates of thromboembolic events and the majority of UK orthopaedic surgeons use at least one form of prophylaxis. Of the many different subgroups of thromboembolic rates that are commonly presented in the literature, symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (spDVT) and fatal pulmonary embolism (fPE) are perhaps the most important clinical outcomes.

To determine the effectiveness of common chemical and mechanical prophylactic methods in preventing spDVT and fPE in patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty. A systematic review of the literature from 1981 to December 2002 was performed. Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Studies where more than one method of prophylaxis was used were excluded from analysis. For each individual method of prophylaxis, data was extracted, combined and converted to give estimates of the rates of spDVT, fPE and major bleeding events. Absolute risk reduction estimates for spDVT, fPE and major bleeding events were calculated by comparing the thromboembolic rates for each method of prophylaxis with using no prophylaxis of any kind.

992 studies were identified of which 162 met the inclusion criteria. No method of prophylaxis was statistically significantly more effective at preventing spDVT and fPE than using nothing. There were at least as many major bleeding complications as spDVTs. The number of fPEs prevented was very small.

When complications such as major bleeding are considered, the evidence behind the use of any prophylaxis is unconvincing.