In a series of 1304 patients (1867 knees), the results of simultaneous and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty were compared with each other and with unilateral total knee arthroplasty. The bilateral procedures had a significantly higher rate of complications than unilateral procedures, almost entirely because of thromboembolic problems. However, this did not correspond to an increase in mortality. If a bilateral procedure was indicated, then a simultaneous procedure had no increased risk over a staged procedure. There was no increase in cardiovascular complications, the rate of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism or mortality. The rate of infection was lower with a bilateral procedure and the overall revision rate was less than 1% in all groups. The prosthesis functioned as well in all groups in the medium and longer term periods.

We feel that simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty is a safe and successful procedure when compared with a staged bilateral procedure. It also has the added benefit of single anaesthetic, reduced costs and decreased total recovery time when compared to a staged bilateral procedure. For these reasons it should be considered as an option in the presence of bilateral knee joint disease.

We validated the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome-assessment instrument for the lumbar spine in a computerised touch-screen format and assessed patients’ acceptance, taking into account previous computer experience, age and gender.

Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic and radiologically-proven degenerative disease of the lumbar spine completed both the hard copy (paper) and the computerised versions of the NASS questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed high agreement between the paper and the touch-screen computer format for both subscales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval (0.90 to 0.97)) independent of computer experience, age and gender. In total, 55% of patients stated that the computer format was easier to use and 66% preferred it to the paper version (p < 0.0001 among subjects expressing a preference). Our data indicate that the touch-screen format is comparable to the paper form. It may improve follow-up in clinical practice and research by meeting patients’ preferences and minimising administrative work.