Recent recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) suggest that all patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery should be assessed for the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Little is known about the incidence of symptomatic VTE after elective external fixation. We studied a consecutive series of adult patients who had undergone elective Ilizarov surgery without routine pharmacological prophylaxis to establish the incidence of symptomatic VTE. . A review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who were treated between October 1998 and February 2011 identified 457 frames in 442 adults whose mean age was 42.6 years (16.0 to 84.6). There were 425 lower limb and 32 upper limb frames. The mean duration of treatment was 25.7 weeks (1.6 to 85.3). According to NICE guidelines all the patients had at least one risk factor for VTE, 246 had two, 172 had three and 31 had four or more. . One patient (0.23%) developed a pulmonary embolus after surgery and was later found to have an inherited thrombophilia. There were 27 deaths, all unrelated to VTE. The cost of providing VTE prophylaxis according to NICE guidelines in this group of patients would be £89 493.40 (£195.80 per patient) even if the cheapest recommended medication was used. . The rate of symptomatic VTE after Ilizarov surgery was low despite using no pharmacological prophylaxis. This study leads us to question whether NICE guidelines are applicable to these patients. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:426–30

Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication.

In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians.

Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41.

We evaluated the quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery by examining how they adhere to validated methodological standards in their development. A structured review was performed for guidelines that were published between January 2005 and April 2013 in medical journals or on the Internet. A pre-defined computerised search was used in MEDLINE, Scopus and Google to identify the guidelines. The AGREE II assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the guidelines in the study.

Seven international and national guidelines were identified. The overall methodological quality of the individual guidelines was good. ‘Scope and Purpose’ (median score 98% interquartile range (IQR)) 86% to 98%) and ‘Clarity of Presentation’ (median score 90%, IQR 90% to 95%) were the two domains that received the highest scores. ‘Applicability’ (median score 68%, IQR 45% to 75%) and ‘Editorial Independence’ (median score 71%, IQR 68% to 75%) had the lowest scores.

These findings reveal that although the overall methodological quality of guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery is good, domains within their development, such as ‘Applicability’ and ‘Editorial Independence’, need to be improved. Application of the AGREE II instrument by the authors of guidelines may improve the quality of future guidelines and provide increased focus on aspects of methodology used in their development that are not robust.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:19–23.

Osteoporosis is common and the health and financial cost of fragility fractures is considerable. The burden of cardiovascular disease has been reduced dramatically by identifying and targeting those most at risk. A similar approach is potentially possible in the context of fragility fractures. The World Health Organization created and endorsed the use of FRAX, a fracture risk assessment tool, which uses selected risk factors to calculate a quantitative, patient-specific, ten-year risk of sustaining a fragility fracture. Treatment can thus be based on this as well as on measured bone mineral density. It may also be used to determine at-risk individuals, who should undergo bone densitometry. FRAX has been incorporated into the national osteoporosis guidelines of countries in the Americas, Europe, the Far East and Australasia. The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also advocates its use in their guidance on the assessment of the risk of fragility fracture, and it may become an important tool to combat the health challenges posed by fragility fractures.