Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 3 | Pages 227 - 231
1 Mar 2024
Todd NV Casey A Birch NC

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: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):227–231


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1284 - 1291
1 Dec 2022
Rose PS

Tumours of the sacrum are difficult to manage. The sacrum provides the structural connection between the torso and lower half of the body and is subject to both axial and rotational forces. Thus, tumours or their treatment can compromise the stability of the spinopelvic junction. Additionally, nerves responsible for lower limb motor groups as well as bowel, bladder, and sexual function traverse or abut the sacrum. Preservation or sacrifice of these nerves in the treatment of sacral tumours has profound implications on the function and quality of life of the patient. This annotation will discuss current treatment protocols for sacral tumours.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1284–1291.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 5 | Pages 550 - 555
1 May 2020
Birch N Todd NV

The cost of clinical negligence in the UK has continued to rise despite no increase in claims numbers from 2016 to 2019. In the US, medical malpractice claim rates have fallen each year since 2001 and the payout rate has stabilized. In Germany, malpractice claim rates for spinal surgery fell yearly from 2012 to 2017, despite the number of spinal operations increasing. In Australia, public healthcare claim rates were largely static from 2008 to 2013, but private claims rose marginally. The cost of claims rose during the period. UK and Australian trends are therefore out of alignment with other international comparisons. Many of the claims in orthopaedics occur as a result of “failure to warn”, i.e. lack of adequately documented and appropriate consent. The UK and USA have similar rates (26% and 24% respectively), but in Germany the rate is 14% and in Australia only 2%. This paper considers the drivers for the increased cost of clinical negligence claims in the UK compared to the USA, Germany and Australia, from a spinal and orthopaedic point of view, with a focus on “failure to warn” and lack of compliance with the principles established in February 2015 in the Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. The article provides a description of the prevailing medicolegal situation in the UK and also calculates, from publicly available data, the cost to the public purse of the failure to comply with the principles established. It shows that compliance with the Montgomery principles would have an immediate and lasting positive impact on the sums paid by NHS Resolution to settle negligence cases in a way that has already been established in the USA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):550–555.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 4 | Pages 355 - 360
1 Apr 2019
Todd NV Birch NC

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: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:355–360.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 6 | Pages 687 - 692
1 Jun 2018
McCormack DJ Gulati A Mangwani J

Our aim in this paper was to investigate the guidelines and laws governing informed consent in the English-speaking world. We noted a recent divergence from medical paternalism within the United Kingdom, highlighted by the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ruling of 2015. We investigated the situation in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of America. We read the national guidance regarding obtaining consent for surgical intervention for each country. We used the references from this guidance to identify the laws that helped inform the guidance, and reviewed the court documents for each case.

There has been a trend towards a more patient-focused approach in consent in each country. Surgeons should be aware of the guidance and legal cases so that they can inform patients fully, and prevent legal problems if outdated practices are followed.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:687–92.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 90-B, Issue 5 | Pages 554 - 555
1 May 2008
Marshall RW

The indications for lumbar discectomy are pain and neurological dysfunction. This paper considers the extent and timing of neurological recovery following spinal decompression.