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.
Anatomical total knee arthroplasty alignment
This review explores recent advances in fixator design and used in contemporary orthopaedic practice including the management of bone loss, complex deformity and severe isolated limb injury.
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.
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.
In the UK we have many surgeon inventors – surgeons who innovate and create new ways of doing things, who invent operations, who design new instruments to facilitate surgery or design new implants for using in patients. However truly successful surgeon inventors are a rare breed and they need to develop additional knowledge and skills during their career in order to push forward their devices and innovations. This article reviews my own experiences as a surgeon inventor and the highs and lows over the whole of my surgical career.
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.
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.
