Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care. Cite this article:
The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone. Cite this article:
The 2010 Fellows undertook a six-week journey through centres of orthopaedic excellence along the East Coast of Canada and the United States. What we learned and gained from the experience and each other is immeasurable, but five areas particularly stand out; education, research,
Orthopaedic surgery is in an exciting transitional period as modern surgical interventions, implants and scientific developments are providing new therapeutic options. As advances in basic science and technology improve our understanding of the pathology and repair of musculoskeletal tissue, traditional operations may be replaced by newer, less invasive procedures which are more appropriately targeted at the underlying pathophysiology. However, evidence-based practice will remain a basic requirement of care. Orthopaedic surgeons can and should remain at the forefront of the development of novel therapeutic interventions and their application. Progression of the potential of bench research into an improved array of orthopaedic treatments in an effective yet safe manner will require the development of a subgroup of specialists with extended training in research to play an important role in bridging the gap between laboratory science and clinical practice. International regulations regarding the introduction of new biological treatments will place an additional burden on the mechanisms of this translational process, and orthopaedic surgeons who are trained in science, surgery and the regulatory environment will be essential. Training and supporting individuals with these skills requires special consideration and discussion by the orthopaedic community. In this paper we review some traditional approaches to the integration of orthopaedic science and surgery, the therapeutic potential of current regenerative biomedical science for cartilage repair and ways in which we may develop surgeons with the skills required to translate scientific discovery into effective and properly assessed orthopaedic treatments.
The Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board wants either ‘run through’ or ‘uncoupled’ orthopaedic training to be adopted throughout the United Kingdom but it is not willing to let both continue together as is the current situation. This annotation explores the argument for and against ‘run through’ training.
