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.

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.

There are significant differences in the methods and styles of orthopaedic surgical training between continents, all with the aim to produce competent consultant surgeons, but the differences in training content and pathway are vast. We review and contrast the key differences between three continents.

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.