Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

Aims. The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between pre- and postoperative opioid use among patients undergoing common elective orthopaedic procedures. Patients and Methods. Pre- and postoperative opioid use were studied among patients from a national insurance database undergoing seven common orthopaedic procedures using univariate log-rank tests and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results. A total of 98 769 patients were included; 35 701 patients were opioid-naïve, 11 621 used opioids continuously for six months before surgery, and 4558 used opioids continuously for at least six months but did not obtain any prescriptions in the three months before surgery. Among opioid-naïve patients, between 0.76% and 4.53% used opioids chronically postoperatively. Among chronic preoperative users, between 42% and 62% ceased chronic opioids postoperatively. A three-month opioid-free period preoperatively led to a rate of cessation of chronic opioid use between 82% and 93%, as compared with between 31% and 50% with continuous preoperative use (p < 0.001 for significant changes in opioid use before and after surgery in each procedure). Between 5.6 and 20.0 preoperative chronic users ceased chronic use for every new chronic opioid user. Risk factors for chronic postoperative use included chronic preoperative opioid use (odds ratio (OR) 4.84 to 39.75; p < 0.0001) and depression (OR 1.14 to 1.55; p < 0.05 except total hip arthroplasty). With a three-month opioid-free period before surgery, chronic preoperative opioids elevated the risk of chronic opioid use only mildly, if at all (OR 0.47 to 1.75; p < 0.05 for total shoulder arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, and carpal tunnel release). Conclusion. Chronic preoperative opioid use increases the risk of chronic postoperative use, but an opioid-free period before surgery decreases this risk compared with continuous preoperative use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1570–1577

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.