In this review, we discuss the evidence for patients returning to sport after hip arthroplasty. This includes the choices regarding level of sporting activity and revision or complications, the type of implant, fixation and techniques of implantation, and how these choices relate to health economics. It is apparent that despite its success over six decades, hip arthroplasty has now evolved to accommodate and support ever-increasing patient demands and may therefore face new challenges. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):661–663

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19

There is a trend towards the use of double-bundle techniques for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. This has not been substantiated scientifically. The functional outcome of these techniques is equivalent to that of single-bundle methods. The main advantage of a double-bundle rather than a single-bundle reconstruction should be a better rotational stability, but the validity and accuracy of systems for the measurement of rotational stability have not been confirmed.

Despite the enthusiasm of surgeons for the double-bundle technique, reconstruction with a single-bundle should remain the standard method for managing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament until strong evidence in favour of the use of the double-bundle method is available.