Traditionally, patients with a fracture of the distal radius are treated in a cast if they do not require surgery. If the fracture requires manipulation, the cast is moulded to hold the reduction and maintain normal anatomical alignment during healing. However, is a cast necessary for patients whose fracture does not require manipulation? Removable splints are an alternative treatment option. Such splints have the advantage that they can be adjusted to improve fit around the wrist as swelling reduces, and can be removed and reapplied for the purpose of washing or, in some cases, exercise. However, evidence for their safety and effectiveness in the management of distal radius fractures is lacking. DRAFT3 is a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial and economic analysis designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of removable splints as an alternative to casts in the treatment of distal radius fractures that do not require manipulation. Cite this article:
Hip fractures pose a major global health challenge, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly among the elderly. With an ageing population, the incidence of these injuries is rising, exerting significant pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite substantial research aimed at establishing best practice, several key areas remain the subject of ongoing debate. This article examines the latest evidence on the place of arthroplasty in the surgical treatment of hip fractures, with a particular focus on the choice of implant, the use of cemented versus uncemented fixation, and advances in perioperative care. 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:
