Despite advances in contemporary hip and knee arthroplasty, blood loss continues to be an issue. Though blood transfusion has long been used to treat post-operative anemia, the associated risks are well established. The objective of this article is to present two practical and effective approaches to minimising blood loss and transfusion rates in hip and knee arthroplasty: the use of antifibrinolytic medications such as tranexamic acid and the adoption of more conservative transfusion indications

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

Over the past 30 years there have been many improvements in implant fixation, correction of deformity, improved polyethylene wear, and survival after knee replacement. The work over the last decade has focused on less invasive surgical techniques, multimodal pain management protocols, more rapid functional recovery and reduced length of stay, aiming to minimise the side effects of treatment while maintaining function and implant durability. When combined and standardised these pre-, intra- and post-operative factors have now facilitated outpatient knee replacement procedures for unicompartmental replacement, patella femoral arthroplasty and total knee replacement (TKR).

We have found liposomal bupivacaine, with potential for longer therapeutic action, to be a helpful adjunct and describe our current pain management program. The next step in our multimodal program is to improve the duration of patient satisfaction and reduce cost and length of stay after TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):7–9.

Failure of bone repair is a challenging problem in the management of fractures. There is a limited supply of autologous bone grafts for treating nonunions, with associated morbidity after harvesting. There is need for a better source of cells for repair. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) hold promise for healing of bone because of their capacity to differentiate into osteoblasts and their availability from a wide variety of sources. Our review aims to evaluate the available clinical evidence and recent progress in strategies which attempt to use autologous and heterologous MSCs in clinical practice, including genetically-modified MSCs and those grown on scaffolds. We have compared various procedures for isolating and expanding a sufficient number of MSCs for use in a clinical setting.

There are now a number of clinical studies which have shown that implantation of MSCs is an effective, safe and durable method for aiding the repair and regeneration of bone.

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.