Humerus non-unions are difficult to treat, especially those with infected non-unions, bone loss, deformity, previous multiple surgeries and/or broken hardware. This paper presents our experience with the use of the Ilizarov frame with humerus non- unions.

Eight consecutive humerus non-unions were treated using the Ilizarov frame. Only loose or infected hardware was removed. The Ilizarov frame was applied using safe zones principles of Ilizarov, Catagni and Paley.

Aspetic non-unions were treated with deformity correction, sequential compression and distraction, bone grafting and intramedullary stabilisation for diaphyseal nonunions. Infected diaphyseal non-unions were treated intra-medullary reaming with or without excision of infected necrotic bone segment, followed by insertion of antibiotic cement rod and compression.

Elbow spanning frames were avoided for supracondylar non-unions. Fine wire fixation of the distal fragment was preferred instead. Free elbow movement was allowed.

There were two infected (diaphyseal) and six aseptic non-unions (four diaphyseal and two supracondylar) treated with this technique. Broken hardware was left in-situ in five cases.

The average time from the index injury was 14 months, with each case having had an average of 3.2 procedures, prior to the application of the Ilizarov frame.

Union was obtained in all cases. The average humerus shortening was 1.5 cm. There was no residual angular or rotational deformity. Infection was eliminated in both the infected non-unions.

Primary bone grafting was used in all aseptic nonunions. Additional bone grafting was needed as a secondary procedure in four cases prior to frame removal. T he average time spent in the frame was 4.5 months. The Ilizarov method is a useful option for the management of complex humerus non-unions. Patients learn to tolerate the fixator and can achieve functional shoulder and elbow range with the fixator.

Podiatrists have an important role in providing care in a Foot and Ankle clinic. Most Foot and Ankle Surgeons welcome the assistance they can provide – in a supervised role. Most Trusts should have one Foot and Ankle Surgeon but there are a limited number of trained specialists. Some Trusts have been appointing ‘Consultant Podiatric Surgeons’ – perhaps as a way of addressing this shortfall.

There are potentially a number of concerns amongst Foot and Ankle Surgeons: the public perception of title ‘consultant’; a Non supervised role; Potential to be used as a more cost effective option

We therefore undertook a Questionnaire assessment of patients attending a Foot and Ankle Clinic. Over a six week period 148 patients attended the specialist clinic. Of those 76% responded. 64% were females. The average age range was 45-64. Most patients assumed the Consultant in charge of their care was a qualified medical practitioner (93%) and regulated by the GMC (92%) and who had completed a recognised higher surgical training scheme (93%). Irrespective of suitable experience 2 out of 3 patients stated they would object if the Consultant in charge of their care did not meet the above criteria.

If the patient required surgery 80% stated they would object if the supervising Consultant was not a medically qualified doctor (this was more important in female patients) Interestingly 78% stated they would refuse surgery unless they were under the care of a medically qualified doctor. Very few patients understood the title Consultant Podiatric Surgeon (with those responding assuming they were medical doctors)

This potentially has significant implications in those Trusts employing Consultant Podiatric Surgeons as opposed to Foot and Ankle (Orthopaedic) Surgeons. Unless this differential is clearly explained to the patients there is an issue with informed consent and the potential for litigation.