The diagnostic sub-categorization of cauda equina syndrome (CES) is used to aid communication between doctors and other healthcare professionals. It is also used to determine the need for, and urgency of, MRI and surgery in these patients. A recent paper by Hoeritzauer et al (2023) in this journal examined the interobserver reliability of the widely accepted subcategories in 100 patients with cauda equina syndrome. They found that there is no useful interobserver agreement for the subcategories, even for experienced spinal surgeons. This observation is supported by the largest prospective study of the treatment of cauda equina syndrome in the UK by Woodfield et al (2023). If the accepted subcategories are unreliable, they cannot be used in the way that they are currently, and they should be revised or abandoned. This paper presents a reassessment of the diagnostic and prognostic subcategories of cauda equina syndrome in the light of this evidence, with a suggested cure based on a more inclusive synthesis of symptoms, signs, bladder ultrasound scan results, and pre-intervention urinary catheterization. Cite this article:
We aim to explore the potential technologies for monitoring and assessment of patients undergoing arthroplasty by examining selected literature focusing on the technology currently available and reflecting on possible future development and application. The reviewed literature indicates a large variety of different hardware and software, widely available and used in a limited manner, to assess patients’ performance. There are extensive opportunities to enhance and integrate the systems which are already in existence to develop patient-specific pathways for rehabilitation. Cite this article:
Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality.
With the established success of the National
Joint Registry and the emergence of a range of new national initiatives for
the capture of electronic data in the National Health Service, orthopaedic
surgery in the United Kingdom has found itself thrust to the forefront
of an information revolution. In this review we consider the benefits
and threats that this revolution poses, and how orthopaedic surgeons
should marshal their resources to ensure that this is a force for
good.
The aim of this study was to determine whether the foundation programme for junior doctors, implemented across the United Kingdom in 2005, provides adequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. We recruited 112 doctors on completion of their foundation programme and assessed them using the Freedman and Bernstein musculoskeletal examination tool. Only 8.9% passed the assessment. Those with exposure to orthopaedics, with a career interest in orthopaedics, and who felt that they had gained adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine obtained significantly higher scores. Those interested in general practice as a career obtained significantly lower scores. Only 15% had any exposure to orthopaedics during the foundation programme and only 13% felt they had adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine. The foundation programme currently provides inadequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. The quality and quantity of exposure to musculoskeletal medicine during the foundation programme must be improved.
Payments by the NHS Litigation Authority continue to rise each year, and reflect an increase in successful claims for negligence against NHS Trusts. Information about the reasons for which Trusts are sued in the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery is scarce. We analysed 130 consecutive cases of alleged clinical negligence in which the senior author had been requested to act as an expert witness between 2004 and 2006, and received information on the outcome of 97 concluded cases from the relevant solicitors. None of the 97 cases proceeded to a court hearing. Overall, 55% of cases were abandoned by the claimants’ solicitors, and the remaining 45% were settled out of court. The cases were settled for sums ranging from £4500 to £2.7 million, the median settlement being £45 000. The cases that were settled out of court were usually the result of delay in treatment or diagnosis, or because of substandard surgical technique.
This paper considers the new financial infrastructure of the National Health Service and provides a resource for orthopaedic surgeons. We describe the importance of accurate documentation and data collection for National Health Service hospital Trust finances and league tables, and support our discussion with examples drawn from our local audit work.
