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.

Injuries to the acromioclavicular joint are common but underdiagnosed. Sprains and minor subluxations are best managed conservatively, but there is debate concerning the treatment of complete dislocations and the more complex combined injuries in which other elements of the shoulder girdle are damaged. Confusion has been caused by existing systems for classification of these injuries, the plethora of available operative techniques and the lack of well-designed clinical trials comparing alternative methods of management. Recent advances in arthroscopic surgery have produced an even greater variety of surgical options for which, as yet, there are no objective data on outcome of high quality. We review the current concepts of the treatment of these injuries.

The aim of this randomised, controlled in vivo study in an ovine model was to investigate the effect of cylic pneumatic pressure on fracture healing. We performed a transverse osteotomy of the right radius in 37 sheep. They were randomised to a control group or a treatment group where they received cyclic loading of the osteotomy by the application of a pressure cuff around the muscles of the proximal forelimb. Sheep from both groups were killed at four or six weeks. Radiography, ultrasonography, biomechanical testing and histomorphometry were used to assess the differences between the groups. The area of periosteal callus, peak torsional strength, fracture stiffness, energy absorbed over the first 10° of torsion and histomorphometric analysis all showed that the osteotomies treated with the cyclic pneumatic pressure at four weeks were not significantly different from the control osteotomies at six weeks.

Patients who have undergone total hip or knee replacement (THR and TKR, respectively) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We aimed to determine the time courses of both the incidence of venous thromboembolism and effective prophylaxis. Patients with elective primary THR and TKR were enrolled in the multi-national Global Orthopaedic Registry. Data on the incidence of venous thromboembolism and prophylaxis were collected from 6639 THR and 8326 TKR patients.

The cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism within three months of surgery was 1.7% in the THR and 2.3% in the TKR patients. The mean times to venous thromboembolism were 21.5 days (sd 22.5) for THR, and 9.7 days (sd 14.1) for TKR. It occurred after the median time to discharge in 75% of the THR and 57% of the TKA patients who developed venous thromboembolism. Of those who received recommended forms of prophylaxis, approximately one-quarter (26% of THR and 27% of TKR patients) were not receiving it seven days after surgery, the minimum duration recommended at the time of the study.

The risk of venous thromboembolism extends beyond the usual period of hospitalisation, while the duration of prophylaxis is often shorter than this. Practices should be re-assessed to ensure that patients receive appropriate durations of prophylaxis.