The diagnostic sub-categorization of cauda equina syndrome (CES) is used to aid communication between doctors and other healthcare professionals. It is also used to determine the need for, and urgency of, MRI and surgery in these patients. A recent paper by Hoeritzauer et al (2023) in this journal examined the interobserver reliability of the widely accepted subcategories in 100 patients with cauda equina syndrome. They found that there is no useful interobserver agreement for the subcategories, even for experienced spinal surgeons. This observation is supported by the largest prospective study of the treatment of cauda equina syndrome in the UK by Woodfield et al (2023). If the accepted subcategories are unreliable, they cannot be used in the way that they are currently, and they should be revised or abandoned. This paper presents a reassessment of the diagnostic and prognostic subcategories of cauda equina syndrome in the light of this evidence, with a suggested cure based on a more inclusive synthesis of symptoms, signs, bladder ultrasound scan results, and pre-intervention urinary catheterization. Cite this article:
Informed consent is a very important part of surgical treatment. In this paper, we report a number of legal judgements in spinal surgery where there was no criticism of the surgical procedure itself. The fault that was identified was a failure to inform the patient of alternatives to, and material risks of, surgery, or overemphasizing the benefits of surgery. In one case, there was a promise that a specific surgeon was to perform the operation, which did not ensue. All of the faults in these cases were faults purely of the consenting process. In many cases, the surgeon claimed to have explained certain risks to the patient but was unable to provide proof of doing so. We propose a checklist that, if followed, would ensure that the surgeon would take their patients through the relevant matters but also, crucially, would act as strong evidence in any future court proceedings that the appropriate discussions had taken place. Although this article focuses on spinal surgery, the principles and messages are applicable to the whole of orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article:
Our aim in this paper was to investigate the
guidelines and laws governing informed consent in the English-speaking
world. We noted a recent divergence from medical paternalism within
the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health
Board ruling of 2015. We investigated the situation in the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of
America. We read the national guidance regarding obtaining consent
for surgical intervention for each country. We used the references
from this guidance to identify the laws that helped inform the guidance,
and reviewed the court documents for each case. There has been a trend towards a more patient-focused approach
in consent in each country. Surgeons should be aware of the guidance
and legal cases so that they can inform patients fully, and prevent
legal problems if outdated practices are followed. Cite this article:
This study assessed whether undergraduate performance improved following the introduction in 2006 of a musculoskeletal teaching programme lasting for seven weeks. Different methods were used to deliver knowledge and skills in trauma and orthopaedic surgery, rheumatology and allied specialties. The programme combined four main elements: traditional firm-based teaching, weekly plenary sessions, a task-based workbook and additional specialist clinics. The block of 139 students who attended in its first year were assessed using a multiple choice question examination just before their final examinations in 2008. They showed a 6% improvement in performance over a control group of 130 students assessed in 2005 before the programme had commenced. There was no difference in performance between the students assessed in 2005 and a second group of 46 students from 2008 who did not attend the new teaching programme. Performance was improved by providing more focused musculoskeletal training using available resources, as well as increasing the length of the programme.
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.
