Prediction tools are instruments which are commonly used to estimate the prognosis in oncology and facilitate clinical decision-making in a more personalized manner. Their popularity is shown by the increasing numbers of prediction tools, which have been described in the medical literature. Many of these tools have been shown to be useful in the field of soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities (eSTS). In this annotation, we aim to provide an overview of the available prediction tools for eSTS, provide an approach for clinicians to evaluate the performance and usefulness of the available tools for their own patients, and discuss their possible applications in the management of patients with an eSTS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1011–1016.

‘Big data’ is a term for data sets that are so large or complex that traditional data processing applications are inadequate. Billions of dollars have been spent on attempts to build predictive tools from large sets of poorly controlled healthcare metadata. Companies often sell reports at a physician or facility level based on various flawed data sources, and comparative websites of ‘publicly reported data’ purport to educate the public. Physicians should be aware of concerns and pitfalls seen in such data definitions, data clarity, data relevance, data sources and data cleaning when evaluating analytic reports from metadata in health care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1571–6

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains an immediate threat to patients following total hip and knee replacement. While there is a strong consensus that steps should be taken to minimise the risk to patients by utilising some forms of prophylaxis for the vast majority of patients, the methods utilised have been extremely variable. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by various professional organisations for over 25 years to provide recommendations to standardise VTE prophylaxis. Historically, these recommendations have varied widely depending in underlying assumptions, goals, and methodology of the various groups. This effort has previously been exemplified by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). The former group of medical specialists targeted minimising venographically proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (the vast majority of which are asymptomatic) as their primary goal prior to 2012. The latter group of surgeons targeted minimising symptomatic VTE. As a result prior to 2012, the recommendations of the two groups were widely divergent. In the past year, both groups have reassessed the current literature with the principal goals of minimising symptomatic VTE events and bleeding complications. As a result, for the first time the CPGs of these two major subspecialty organisations are in close agreement

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of total knee replacement in patients receiving continuous warfarin therapy. . We identified 24 consecutive patients receiving long-term warfarin therapy who underwent total knee replacement between 2006 and 2008 and compared them with a group of age- and gender-matched patients not on long-term anticoagulation. Primary observations were changes in haemoglobin, transfusion rates and complications. Secondary observations were fluctuations in the international normalised ratio (INR) and post-operative range of movement. . There was no significant difference between the two groups in pre- or post-operative haemoglobin, incidence of transfusion or incidence of post-operative complications. There were no surgical delays due to a high INR level. The mean change in INR during the peri-operative phase was minimal (mean 0.4; . sd. 0.7). There was no significant difference in the range of movement between the two groups after day two post-operatively. Current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend bridging therapy for high-risk patients receiving oral anticoagulation and undergoing major orthopaedic procedures. We have shown that a safe alternative is to continue the steady-state warfarin peri-operatively in patients on long-term anticoagulation requiring total knee replacement

Thromboprophylaxis remains a controversial subject. A vast amount of epidemiological and trial data about venous thromboembolism has been published over the past 40 years. These data have been distilled and synthesised into guidelines designed to help the practitioner translate this extensive research into ‘evidence-based’ advice. Guidelines should, in theory, benefit patient care by ensuring that every patient routinely receives the best prophylaxis; without guidelines, it is argued, patients may fail to receive treatment or be exposed to protocols which are ineffective, dangerous or expensive. Guidelines, however, have not been welcomed or applied universally. In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have published their concerns about the thromboprophylaxis guidelines prepared by the American College of Chest Physicians. In Britain, controversy persists with many surgeons unconvinced of the risk/benefit, cost/benefit or practicality of thromboprophylaxis. The extended remit of the recent National Institute of Clinical Excellence thromboprophylaxis guidelines has been challenged. The reasons for this disquiet are addressed in this paper and particular emphasis is placed on how clinically-acceptable guidelines could be developed and applied

Aims

We investigated the efficacy and safety profile of commonly used venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis agents following hip and knee arthroplasty.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability, against an accepted international standard, of a linked hip fracture registry and routinely collected administrative dataset in England to embed and deliver randomized controlled trials (RCTs).