Intra-operative, peri-articular injection of local anaesthesia is an increasingly popular way of controlling pain following total knee replacement. At the same time, the problems associated with allogenic blood transfusion have led to interest in alternative methods for managing blood loss after total knee replacement, including the use of auto-transfusion of fluid from the patient’s surgical drain. It is safe to combine peri-articular infiltration with auto-transfusion from the drain. We performed a randomised clinical trial to compare the concentration of local anaesthetic in the blood and in the fluid collected in the knee drain in patients having either a peri-articular injection or a femoral nerve block. Clinically relevant concentrations of local anaesthetic were found in the fluid from the drains of patients having peri-articular injections (4.92 μg/ml (sd 3.151)). However, none of the patients having femoral nerve blockade had detectable levels. None of the patients in either group had clinically relevant concentrations of local anaesthetic in their blood after re-transfusion.

The evidence from this study suggests that it is safe to use peri-articular injection in combination with auto-transfusion of blood from peri-articular drains during knee replacement surgery.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.