Methods:

Total radiation exposure accumulated during circular frame treatment of distal tibial fractures was quantified in 47 patients treated by a single surgeon from March 2011 until Nov 2014. The radiation exposures for all relevant radiology procedures for the distal tibial injury were included to estimate the radiation risk to the patient.

Radiological imaging is necessary in a wide variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations. The evolving orthopaedic workforce includes an increasing number of pregnant workers. Current legislation in the United Kingdom, Europe and United States allows them to choose their degree of participation, if any, with fluoroscopic procedures. For those who wish to engage in radiation-prone procedures, specific regulations apply to limit the radiation dose to the pregnant worker and unborn child.

This paper considers those aspects of radiation protection, the potential effects of exposure to radiation in pregnancy and the dose of radiation from common orthopaedic procedures, which are important for safe clinical practice.

The new Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 (IR (ME)ER) were implemented in January 2001. These regulations state that “the referrer must record in the patient’s notes that a radiograph was taken and what it showed”. As a result it is now incumbent upon the orthopaedic surgeon to document formally the findings of all requested radiographs. We present a case in which a left upper bronchial carcinoma was detected initially on a radiograph of the left shoulder. It highlights the importance of careful examination of the entire radiographic image and the documenting of the findings

Recent reports observe that orthopaedic surgeons lack essential knowledge about ionising radiation. We aim to demonstrate perceived use of image-intensifiers by surgeons and awareness of radiation doses used during fractured neck of femur surgery. Surgeons at a regional trauma centre were sent an online questionnaire. They were shown two neck of femur fracture radiographs and asked the total number of images they would use to reduce and fix the fracture with a dynamic-hip-screw / inter-medullary nail respectively. They were asked the maximum safe radiation dose, and that of ‘hip pining’ compared to CXR as outlined by the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999. For a DHS, consultants and registrars estimate their image use similarly. For IM nailing, consultants estimated higher image use than registrars, and double the number of X-rays taken for IM nailing compared to DHS. Knowledge levels regarding radiation doses during orthopaedic hip procedures are very low. There is an expectation that more images will be used in IM nailing procedures. We plan to educate orthopaedic surgeons about radiation dose and safety. Correlating our findings with actual use of image in theatre when performing hip fracture surgery would extend the use of this study

The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 is concerned with: “the making of safety measures in regard to radioactive substances and the emission of ionising radiation”. Responsibility is placed upon the Practitioner, Operator, Referrer and employer. A clinical evaluation of the outcome of each medical exposure must be recorded.” In Ayr Hospital Radiologist report A&E radiographs but not those in fracture clinic unless a specific request was made. Therefore the Surgeon/Trainee must record their interpretation. An audit was completed to review the rate of documentation of the interpretation of radiographs in the clinical records of consecutive patients attending fracture clinics Notes and radiographs were reviewed from 6 separate fracture clinics. 106 patients attended during the time period and were seen by 9 different surgeons; 5 consultants and 4 training grade surgeons. 46 out of 106 patients were x-rayed and interpretation recorded in 38 cases. No interpretation was found in 8 cases, giving an overall compliance of 82.6% with no difference between different grades of surgeon: Consultants 79.2% (19/24); Trainees 86.4% (19/22). These finding were presented at a departmental audit meeting and the audit loop was then closed by a second period of audit with an improvement in the consultants compliance to 100% (22/22) p=0.05 and no significant change in the trainees performance 75% (18/24)

Aims

To benchmark the radiation dose to patients during the course of treatment for a spinal deformity.

Aims

The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of developing cancer from the exposure to radiation associated with surgery to correct limb deformities in children.

There have been many advances in the resuscitation and early management of patients with severe injuries during the last decade. These have come about as a result of the reorganisation of civilian trauma services in countries such as Germany, Australia and the United States, where the development of trauma systems has allowed a concentration of expertise and research. The continuing conflicts in the Middle East have also generated a significant increase in expertise in the management of severe injuries, and soldiers now survive injuries that would have been fatal in previous wars. This military experience is being translated into civilian practice.

The aim of this paper is to give orthopaedic surgeons a practical, evidence-based guide to the current management of patients with severe, multiple injuries. It must be emphasised that this depends upon the expertise, experience and facilities available within the local health-care system, and that the proposed guidelines will inevitably have to be adapted to suit the local resources.

We identified 42 patients who presented to our unit over a 27-year period with a secondary radiation-induced sarcoma of bone. We reviewed patient, tumour and treatment factors to identify those that affected outcome. The mean age of the patients at presentation was 45.6 years (10 to 84) and the mean latent interval between radiotherapy and diagnosis of the sarcoma was 17 years (4 to 50). The median dose of radiotherapy given was estimated at 50 Gy (mean 49; 20 to 66). There was no correlation between radiation dose and the time to development of a sarcoma. The pelvis was the most commonly affected site (14 patients (33%)). Breast cancer was the most common primary tumour (eight patients; 19%). Metastases were present at diagnosis of the sarcoma in nine patients (21.4%). Osteosarcoma was the most common diagnosis and occurred in 30 cases (71.4%). Treatment was by surgery and chemotherapy when indicated: 30 patients (71.4%) were treated with the intention to cure. The survival rate was 41% at five years for those treated with the intention to cure but in those treated palliatively the mean survival was only 8.8 months (2 to 22), and all had died by two years. The only factor found to be significant for survival was the ability to completely resect the tumour. Limb sarcomas had a better prognosis (66% survival at five years) than central ones (12% survival at five years) (p = 0.009).

Radiation-induced sarcoma is a rare complication of radiotherapy. Both surgical and oncological treatment is likely to be compromised by the treatment received previously by the patient.