Pain produced by the tourniquet is a common source of complaint for patients undergoing carpal tunnel decompression. Practice varies as to tourniquet position. There is little evidence to suggest benefit of one position over another. Our aim was to compare the experience of both the patient and the surgeon with the tourniquet placed either on the arm or the forearm.

Ethical approval was granted. Following power calculation and a significance level set at 0.05, 100 patients undergoing open carpal tunnel decompression under local anaesthetic were randomised to arm or forearm group. Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) (0–100) for pain, blood pressure and heart rate were taken at 2 minute intervals. The operating surgeon provided a VAS for bloodless field achieved and obstruction caused by the tourniquet.

The demographics of the groups was similar. There were no statistically significant differences in any measure between the groups.

Average tourniquet times were 8.8 minutes (forearm) and 8.2 minutes (arm). The average VAS score for forearm and arm was 13 and 11 respectively for bloodless field, 9 and 2 for obstruction. Average overall VAS for pain was 27 in each group, however interval VAS scores for pain were higher in the arm group. The average change Mean Arterial Pressure was −5 mmHg (forearm) −2 mmHg (arm) pulse rate was −1 bpm (forearm) and −2 bpm (arm).

Tourniquet placement on the arm does not result in significant difference in patient pain, physiological response or length of operation. Surgeons reported less obstruction and better bloodless fields with an arm tourniquet, however there was a trend for forearm tourniquet to result in less pain for the patient.

Failure of conservative treatment for tennis elbow is an indication for surgical decompression. The Topaz® technique utilises radiofrequency to decompress(detension) the tendon and in addition, it is thought to stimulate angiogenesis thereby facilitating healing. Initially we reviewed the three month follow up of 25 tennis elbow decompressions performed using the Topaz® technique. The case notes were reviewed and findings recorded on a structured proforma. After a minimum of 1 year we re-reviewed the case notes to identify recurrences or patients requiring revision surgery. The majority of patients were aged between 35–50 years. 87% of patients had symptoms for more than 12 months and symptoms experienced were mainly pain (100%). All patients had a full trial of physiotherapy and had minimum of two steroid injections. At three month follow up symptoms were completely relieved or improved in 88%. All patients were given an open appointment to review if symptoms recurred. On review of the notes after a minimum of one year, 84% had no further clinic attendances. Four elbows re-attended with symptom recurrence, two underwent traditional open release and two declined revision surgery. In the two patients who declined further surgery, symptoms had resolved at one year. The results of the Topaz® technique are comparable to that of the results of the traditional release from the literature both in terms of success and problems. It would be important to compare it to the traditional release to gauge its benefits against the standard practice.

Aims: Following hip fracture, a delay to surgery of greater than 24 hours is associated with a higher morbidity and mortality. In our unit, one of the common perceived delays is patients admitted on warfarin. The elective perioperative management of patients on warfarin is well documented. We aimed to define the incidence and delay of patients admitted with hip fractures on warfarin, and how its reversal was managed. Methods: Data was collected prospectively from 14 hospitals who contribute to the Scottish Hip Fracture Database. In addition to the data recorded on the Standardised Audit of Hip fractures in Europe form (SAHFE), specific questions relating to warfarin and its reversal were asked. Results: During 1.8.01–31.12.01, 1641 patients were admitted with a hip fracture, 42 patients (2.6%) were taking warfarin with the commonest indication being atrial fibrillation (40.5%). Mean INR on admission was 2.83 (range 1.2–8.2), and at surgery was 1.43 (range 1.0–2.0). Active reversal occurred in 19 patients. A delay to theatre of > 48 hours occurred in 72.7% of the warfarin group versus 19.0% in the non-warfarin group. There were wound complications in 5 patients taking warfarin. Conclusions: The number of patients admitted on warfarin was lower than we had anticipated. Delay to theatre was significantly higher in the warfarin group. The approach to the perioperative management of patients taking warfarin was varied.