The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK.¹ This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England.²

What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed?

In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.³ We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic.

Ankle replacements have improved significantly since the first reported attempt at resurfacing of the talar dome in 1962. We are now at a stage where ankle replacement offers a viable option in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. As the procedure becomes more successful, it is important to reflect and review the current surgical outcomes. This allows us to guide our patients in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. What is the better surgical treatment – arthrodesis or replacement?

Not all questions can be answered by prospective randomised controlled trials. Registries were introduced as a way of collecting information on joint replacements at a population level. They have helped to identify failing implants and the data have also been used to monitor the performance of individual surgeons. This review aims to look at some of the less well known registries that are currently being used worldwide, including those kept on knee ligaments, ankle arthroplasty, fractures and trauma