Blast and ballistic weapons used on the battlefield cause devastating injuries rarely seen outside armed conflict. These extremely high-energy injuries predominantly affect the limbs and are usually heavily contaminated with soil, foliage, clothing and even tissue from other casualties. Once life-threatening haemorrhage has been addressed, the military surgeon’s priority is to control infection. . Combining historical knowledge from previous conflicts with more recent experience has resulted in a systematic approach to these injuries. Urgent debridement of necrotic and severely contaminated tissue, irrigation and local and systemic antibiotics are the basis of management. These principles have resulted in successful healing of previously unsurvivable wounds. Healthy tissue must be retained for future reconstruction, vulnerable but viable tissue protected to allow survival and avascular tissue removed with all contamination. . While recent technological and scientific advances have offered some advantages, they must be judged in the context of a hard-won historical knowledge of these wounds. This approach is applicable to comparable civilian injury patterns. One of the few potential benefits of war is the associated improvement in our understanding of treating the severely injured; for this positive effect to be realised these experiences must be shared

We live in troubled times. Increased opposition reliance on explosive devices, the widespread use of individual and vehicular body armour, and the improved survival of combat casualties have created many complex musculoskeletal injuries in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Explosive mechanisms of injury account for 75% of all musculoskeletal combat casualties. Throughout all the echelons of care medical staff practice consistent treatment strategies of damage control orthopaedics including tourniquets, antibiotics, external fixation, selective amputations and vacuum-assisted closure. Complications, particularly infection and heterotopic ossification, remain frequent, and re-operations are common. Meanwhile, non-combat musculoskeletal casualties are three times more frequent than those derived from combat and account for nearly 50% of all musculoskeletal casualties requiring evacuation from the combat zone

The “Universal Protocol” (UP) was launched as a regulatory compliance standard by the Joint Commission on 1st July 1 2004, with the primary intent of reducing the occurrence of wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery. As we’re heading into the tenth year of the UP implementation in the United States, it is time for critical assessment of the protocol’s impact on patient safety related to the incidence of preventable never-events. This article opens the debate on the potential shortcomings and pitfalls of the UP, and provides recommendations on how to circumvent specific inherent vulnerabilities of this widely established patient safety protocol.

Obesity is a global epidemic of 2.1 billion people and a well known cause of osteoarthritis. Joint replacement in the obese attracts more complications, poorer outcomes and higher revision rates. It is a reversible condition and the fundamental principles of dealing with reversible medical conditions prior to elective total joint replacement should apply to obesity. The dilemma for orthopaedic surgeons is when to offer surgery in the face of a reversible condition, which if treated may obviate joint replacement and reduce the risk and severity of obesity related disease in both the medical arena and the field of orthopaedics.