The December 2015 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: Vitamin E infusion helpful in polyethylene; Hip replacement in fracture and arthritis; Non-surgical treatment for arthritis; Cost and approach in hip surgery; Who does well in FAI surgery?; AAOS Thromboembolism guidelines; Thromboprophylaxis and periprosthetic joint infection; Fluid collections not limited to metal-on-metal THR
The August 2014 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: Serial MRIs best for pseudotumour surveillance; Is ultrasound good enough for MOM follow-up?; Does weight loss in obese patients help?; Measuring acetabular anteversion on plain films; Two-stage one-stage too many in fungal hip revisions? and 35 is the magic number in arthroplasty.
The February 2013 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup. 360 . looks at: amazing alumina; dual mobility; white cells and periprosthetic infection; cartilage and impingement surgery; acetabulum in combination; cementless ceramic prosthesis;
The June 2012 Hip &
Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: whether metal-on-metal is really such a disaster; resurfacings with unexplained pain; large heads and high ion levels; hip arthroscopy for FAI; the inaccuracy of clinical tests for impingement; arthroscopic lengthening of iliopsoas; the OA hip; the injured hamstring – football’s most common injury; an algorithm for hip fracture surgery; and sparing piriformis at THR.
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.
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.
