The critical relationship between airborne microbiological contamination in an operating theatre and surgical site infection (SSI) is well known. The aim of this annotation is to explain the scientific basis of using settle plates to audit the quality of air, and to provide information about the practicalities of using them for the purposes of clinical audit. The microbiological quality of the air in most guidance is defined by volumetric sampling, but this method is difficult for surgical departments to use on a routine basis. Settle plate sampling, which mimics the mechanism of deposition of airborne microbes onto open wounds and sterile instruments, is a good alternative method of assessing the quality of the air. Current practice is not to sample the air in an operating theatre during surgery, but to rely on testing the engineering systems which deliver the clean air. This is, however, not good practice and microbiological testing should be carried out routinely during operations as part of clinical audit.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):887–891.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the foundation programme for junior doctors, implemented across the United Kingdom in 2005, provides adequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. We recruited 112 doctors on completion of their foundation programme and assessed them using the Freedman and Bernstein musculoskeletal examination tool. Only 8.9% passed the assessment. Those with exposure to orthopaedics, with a career interest in orthopaedics, and who felt that they had gained adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine obtained significantly higher scores. Those interested in general practice as a career obtained significantly lower scores. Only 15% had any exposure to orthopaedics during the foundation programme and only 13% felt they had adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine. The foundation programme currently provides inadequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. The quality and quantity of exposure to musculoskeletal medicine during the foundation programme must be improved.