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.

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.

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.¹ This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England.²

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.³ We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic.

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

Mechanical alignment has been a fundamental tenet of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) since modern knee replacement surgery was developed in the 1970s. The objective of mechanical alignment was to infer the greatest biomechanical advantage to the implant to prevent early loosening and failure. Over the last 40 years a great deal of innovation in TKA technology has been focusing on how to more accurately achieve mechanical alignment. Recently the concept of mechanical alignment has been challenged, and other alignment philosophies are being explored with the intention of trying to improve patient outcomes following TKA.

This article examines the evolution of the mechanical alignment concept and whether there are any viable alternatives.

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.