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. 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.
Rib fracture fixation by orthopaedic and cardiothoracic surgeons has become increasingly popular for the treatment of chest injuries in trauma. The literature, though mainly limited to Level II and III evidence, shows favourable results for operative fixation. In this paper we review the literature and discuss the indications for rib fracture fixation, surgical approaches, choice of implants and the future direction for management. With the advent of NICE guidance and new British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) guidelines in production, the management of rib fractures is going to become more and more commonplace.
Clinical studies evaluating the effects of vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium on physical function, falls and fractures have been inconsistent. Vitamin D has, however, been the focus of much orthopaedic, trauma and endocrine research. Playing a central role in muscle and bone metabolism, some studies on Vitamin D therapies offer the tantalising suggestion of a reduction in falls and fractures simply with vitamin D supplementation. We review the background and evidence behind vitamin D.
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.
Modern athletes are constantly susceptible to performance-threatening injury as they push their bodies to greater limits and endure higher physical stresses. Loss of performance and training time can adversely and permanently affect a sportsperson’s career. Now more than ever with advancing medical technology the answer may lie in biologic therapy. We have been using peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) clinically and have been able to demonstrate that stem cells differentiate into target cells to enable regenerative repair. The potential of this technique as a regenerative agent can be seen in three broad applications: 1) articular cartilage, 2) bone and 3) soft tissue. This article highlights the successful cases, among many, in all three of these applications.
By and large, physicians and surgeons trust what they read, even if they take authors’ conclusions with a pinch of salt. There is a world of difference between being cautious about the implications of what you read and being defrauded by dishonest researchers. Fraud and scientific research are incompatible bedfellows and yet are an unhappy part of our research existence. All subspecialties are to blame and orthopaedics is no exception.
In 2006, approximately 1.3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles were published, aided by a large rise in the number of available scientific journals from 16 000 in 2001 to 23 750 by 2006. Is this evidence of an explosion in scientific knowledge or just the accumulation of wasteful publications and junk science? Data show that only 45% of the articles published in the 4500 top scientific journals are cited within the first five years of publication, a figure that is dropping steadily. Only 42% receive more than one citation. For better or for worse, “Publish or Perish” appears here to stay as the number of published papers becomes the basis for selection to academic positions, for tenure and promotions, a criterion for the awarding of grants and also the source of funding for salaries. The high pressure to publish has, however, ushered in an era where scientists are increasingly conducting and publishing data from research performed with ‘questionable research practices’ or even committing outright fraud. The few cases which are reported will in fact be the tip of an iceberg and the scientific community needs to be vigilant against this corruption of science.
The need to demonstrate probity and fair market competition has increased scrutiny of the relationships between orthopaedic surgeons and the industry that supplies them with their tools and devices. Investigations and judgements from the US Department of Justice and the introduction of the AdvaMed and Eucomed codes have defined new boundaries for interactions between these groups. This article summarises the current interplay between orthopaedic surgeons and industry, and provides recommendations for the future.
