Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.

Despite increasing scientific investigation, the best method for preventing post-operative deep-vein thrombosis remains unclear. In the wake of the publication of the Pulmonary Embolism Prevention trial and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) on the prevention of thromboembolism, we felt that it was timely to survey current thromboprophylactic practices. Questionnaires were sent to all consultants on the register of the British Orthopaedic Association. The rate of response was 62%. The survey showed a dramatic change in practice towards the use of chemoprophylaxis since the review by Morris and Mitchell in 1976. We found that there was a greater uniformity of opinion and prescribing practices in Scotland, consistent with the SIGN guidelines, than in the rest of the UK. We argue in favour of the use of such documents which are based on a qualitative review of current scientific literature.