In the UK we have many surgeon inventors – surgeons who innovate and create new ways of doing things, who invent operations, who design new instruments to facilitate surgery or design new implants for using in patients. However truly successful surgeon inventors are a rare breed and they need to develop additional knowledge and skills during their career in order to push forward their devices and innovations. This article reviews my own experiences as a surgeon inventor and the highs and lows over the whole of my surgical career

Anatomical total knee arthroplasty alignment versus conventional mechanical alignment; or a combination?

The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery is expanding rapidly as improvements in the technology evolve. This article examines current evidence to justify the usage of robotics, as well as the future potential in this emerging field.

Arthroscopy has become a routine surgical procedure, used as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the treatment of joint problems. This article discusses its origins and looks at how it is currently used.

Patient-centred medicine is an approach to medical care that emphasises the patient experience. Treatment outcome measures reflect this experience, and outcomes are measured by obtaining patient feedback. Central to this type of care is the patient-physician relationship. Communication, physician empathy, and shared decision making are key components of this relationship. Patient-centred care is correlated with better patient outcomes across medical specialties and higher patient perceived quality of care. Payors are now using patient-centred quality measures in their physician reimbursement schedules.

The “Universal Protocol” (UP) was launched as a regulatory compliance standard by the Joint Commission on 1st July 1 2004, with the primary intent of reducing the occurrence of wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery. As we’re heading into the tenth year of the UP implementation in the United States, it is time for critical assessment of the protocol’s impact on patient safety related to the incidence of preventable never-events. This article opens the debate on the potential shortcomings and pitfalls of the UP, and provides recommendations on how to circumvent specific inherent vulnerabilities of this widely established patient safety protocol.

According to a report by Millennium Research Group in January 2011, the US orthopaedic extremity device market will generate over $4.6 billion in revenue by 2015.¹ With an ageing demographic and increasing demand for better quality of life into old age, there is clearly a commercial drive for the orthopaedic device community to develop new and innovative solutions to bone and joint problems. Devising such solutions is one thing; protecting them, so that research investment can be rewarded, is another. How is such protection achieved? The judicious use of intellectual property rights plays a key role, and this article aims to provide some information about the use of patents to protect innovation.

In a global environment of rising costs and limited funds, robotic and computer-assisted orthopaedic technologies could provide the means to drive a necessary revolution in arthroplasty productivity. Robots have been used to operate on humans for 20 years, but the adoption of the technology has lagged behind that of the manufacturing industry. The use of robots in surgery should enable cost savings by reducing instrumentation and inventories, and improving accuracy. Despite these benefits, the orthopaedic community has been resistant to change. If the ergonomics and economics are right, robotic technology just might transform the provision of joint replacement.

While the demand for orthopaedic surgical expertise in the developing world is in critically short supply, short-term remedy from visiting doctors cannot solve this long-term healthcare problem. Capacity building by senior and training orthopaedic surgeons from established Western training programmes can offer a significant contribution to the orthopaedic patient in the developing world and the gains for those visiting are extremely valuable. We report on several visits by a UK orthopaedic team to a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan and discuss the operative and non-operative case mix and the benefits in terms of local capacity building and the unique experience of those visiting.

A comprehensive study of osteology remains a cornerstone of current orthopaedic and traumatological education. Osteology was already established as an important part of surgical education by the 16^th century. In order to teach anatomy and osteology, the corpses of executed criminals were dissected by the praelector anatomiae of the Amsterdam Guild of Surgeons. Magnificent anatomical atlases preserve the knowledge obtained from these dissections. We present an overview of the most authoritative works of Vesalius, Bidloo, Cheselden, and Albinus authored in the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th centuries. At that time a knowledge of osteology was necessary to pass the ‘master-exam’ in order to become a surgeon, and anatomical teaching was traditionally based on the practice of dissection. In the modern era, anatomical dissection and illustrations are largely being replaced by three-dimensional imaging and computer simulations, with an unfortunate trend in current curricula away from the established teaching technique of dissection. Education through the practice of dissection, particularly for future surgeons, remains integral to the development of tissue handling techniques, understanding of anatomical variation, and furthering of spatial awareness skills. With this review, we seek to remind contemporary surgeons of the lessons we can learn from our predecessors who valued education through anatomical dissection.

Blast and ballistic weapons used on the battlefield cause devastating injuries rarely seen outside armed conflict. These extremely high-energy injuries predominantly affect the limbs and are usually heavily contaminated with soil, foliage, clothing and even tissue from other casualties. Once life-threatening haemorrhage has been addressed, the military surgeon’s priority is to control infection.

Combining historical knowledge from previous conflicts with more recent experience has resulted in a systematic approach to these injuries. Urgent debridement of necrotic and severely contaminated tissue, irrigation and local and systemic antibiotics are the basis of management. These principles have resulted in successful healing of previously unsurvivable wounds. Healthy tissue must be retained for future reconstruction, vulnerable but viable tissue protected to allow survival and avascular tissue removed with all contamination.

While recent technological and scientific advances have offered some advantages, they must be judged in the context of a hard-won historical knowledge of these wounds. This approach is applicable to comparable civilian injury patterns. One of the few potential benefits of war is the associated improvement in our understanding of treating the severely injured; for this positive effect to be realised these experiences must be shared.

The need to demonstrate probity and fair market competition has increased scrutiny of the relationships between orthopaedic surgeons and the industry that supplies them with their tools and devices. Investigations and judgements from the US Department of Justice and the introduction of the AdvaMed and Eucomed codes have defined new boundaries for interactions between these groups. This article summarises the current interplay between orthopaedic surgeons and industry, and provides recommendations for the future.