Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication.

In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted the importance of informing and educating clinicians.

Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41.

Little information is available about several important aspects of the treatment of melioidosis osteomyelitis and septic arthritis.

We undertook a retrospective review of 50 patients with these conditions in an attempt to determine the effect of location of the disease, type of surgical intervention and duration of antibiotic treatment on outcome, particularly complications and relapse.

We found that there was a 27.5% risk of osteomyelitis of the adjacent bone in patients with septic arthritis in the lower limb. Patients with septic arthritis and osteomyelitis of an adjacent bone were in hospital significantly longer (p = 0.001), needed more operations (p = 0.031) and had a significantly higher rate of complications and re-presentation (p = 0.048).

More than half the patients (61%), most particularly those with multifocal bone and joint involvement, and those with septic arthritis and osteomyelitis of an adjacent bone who were treated operatively, needed more visits to theatre.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:277–82.

We have prospectively studied the outcome of infections associated with implants which were retained and treated using a standardised antimicrobial protocol. Over a period of four years, we studied 24 consecutive patients who had symptoms of infection for less than one year, a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen which was susceptible to recommended antimicrobial agents. The infections involved hip prostheses (14), knee prostheses (5), an internal fixation device (4), and an ankle prosthesis (1).

Twenty patients had a successful outcome at a median follow-up of 3.7 years (1.8 to 4.7); four had failure of the implant after a median follow-up of 1.2 years (0.3 to 2.5). The probability of survival without failure of treatment was 96% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 88 to 100), 92% at two years (95% CI 80 to 100) and 86% at three years (95% CI 72 to 100).

Patients with a short-term infection but with a stable implant, no sinus tract and a known pathogen may be successfully treated by retention of the implant and the use of a standardised regimen of antimicrobial treatment.

Painful neuromas may follow traumatic nerve injury. We carried out a double-blind controlled trial in which patients with a painful neuroma of the lower limb (n = 20) were randomly assigned to treatment by resection of the neuroma and translocation of the proximal nerve stump into either muscle tissue or an adjacent subcutaneous vein. Translocation into a vein led to reduced intensity of pain as assessed by visual analogue scale (5.8 (sd 2.7) vs 3.8 (sd 2.4); p < 0.01), and improved sensory, affective and evaluative dimensions of pain as assessed by the McGill pain score (33 (sd 18) vs 14 (sd 12); p < 0.01). This was associated with an increased level of activity (p < 0.01) and improved function (p < 0.01).

Transposition of the nerve stump into an adjacent vein should be preferred to relocation into muscle.