Editorial Policy

We are committed to accurate, useful, and clearly-sourced information about knee replacement surgery. This page explains how we work, and why a patient-written site insists on surgeon review.

Who writes, and who checks

The lived experience on this site is written in the first person by our founder, a patient who had a knee replacement. Because she is not a clinician, every article that touches clinical fact is reviewed by a consultant orthopaedic surgeon before publication. The two roles are kept separate on purpose: the patient voice carries the experience, the surgeon guards the accuracy. Reviewed articles display the reviewer’s name, credentials, and the date of review. Our current reviewer is Mr Paul Henderson, FRCS (Tr&Orth).

Sources we rely on

We research using authoritative orthopaedic and health sources, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the National Joint Registry (which tracks how long implants actually last in practice), NICE, the NHS, and peer-reviewed research. Quantitative claims (survival rates, satisfaction figures, recovery times) are cited at the foot of every article.

Honesty about outcomes

Knee replacement has a lower satisfaction rate than hip replacement, and a meaningful minority of patients are left with some lasting stiffness or an ache. We will not airbrush that. Our editorial standard is to state outcomes plainly, including the imperfect ones, so readers can decide with realistic expectations.

Keeping content current

We review published articles periodically and update them as clinical guidance and registry data change. Each article shows its publication date and, where applicable, when it was last updated or re-reviewed.

Independence and corrections

We do not accept payment to recommend any surgeon, hospital, or implant, and we name no provider. If you spot an error, please tell us via our Contact page and we will review it promptly.