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

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9

In May 2012, in airports across the globe, seven orthopaedic surgeons bravely said goodbye to their loved ones, and slowly turned towards their respective aircraft. Filled with expectation and mild trepidation they stepped into the unknown… the ABC fellowship of 2012.

We report the results of six trauma and orthopaedic projects to Kenya in the last three years. The aims are to deliver both a trauma service and teaching within two hospitals; one a district hospital near Mount Kenya in Nanyuki, the other the largest public hospital in Kenya in Mombasa. The Kenya Orthopaedic Project team consists of a wide range of multidisciplinary professionals that allows the experience to be shared across those specialties. A follow-up clinic is held three months after each mission to review the patients. To our knowledge there are no reported outcomes in the literature for similar projects.

A total of 211 operations have been performed and 400 patients seen during the projects. Most cases were fractures of the lower limb; we have been able to follow up 163 patients (77%) who underwent surgical treatment. We reflect on the results so far and discuss potential improvements for future missions.

Staphylococcus aureus is one of the leading causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Over the past decade there has been an increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This is a subpopulation of the bacterium with unique resistance and virulence characteristics. Nasal colonisation with either S. aureus or MRSA has been demonstrated to be an important independent risk factor associated with the increasing incidence and severity of SSI after orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, there is an economic burden related to SSI following orthopaedic surgery, with MRSA-associated SSI leading to longer hospital stays and increased hospital costs. Although there is some controversy about the effectiveness of screening and eradication programmes, the literature suggests that patients should be screened and MRSA-positive patients treated before surgical admission in order to reduce the risk of SSI.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:4–9.

National guidelines state that in patients undergoing operations the site of the procedure should be marked. In clinical practice the same marker is used repeatedly. We are not aware of any investigation regarding the theoretical risk of transferring organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aureus (MRSA) between patients by a skin marker.

In an experimental setting, Penflex and Viomedex skin markers were tested 30 times each after contaminating them with a standard inoculum of MRSA. The survival of the organism on the tip of the markers was assessed by culture on MRSA-indicator nutrient agar plates at 0, 5, 15 and 60 minutes, 24 and 48 hours and at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after contamination.

There was a significant difference between the markers, with the Penflex showing no survival of MRSA after 15 minutes whereas the Viomedex product continued to produce MRSA cultures for up to three weeks.

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.