Radiological imaging is necessary in a wide variety of trauma and elective orthopaedic operations. The evolving orthopaedic workforce includes an increasing number of pregnant workers. Current legislation in the United Kingdom, Europe and United States allows them to choose their degree of participation, if any, with fluoroscopic procedures. For those who wish to engage in radiation-prone procedures, specific regulations apply to limit the radiation dose to the pregnant worker and unborn child. This paper considers those aspects of radiation protection, the potential effects of exposure to radiation in pregnancy and the dose of radiation from common orthopaedic procedures, which are important for safe clinical practice

Procedures performed at the incorrect anatomical site are commonly perceived as being relatively rare. However, they can be a devastating event for patients and doctors. Evidence from the United Kingdom and North America suggests that wrong-site, wrong-procedure and wrong-patient events occur more commonly than we think. Furthermore, their incidence may be increasing as NHS Trusts increase the volume and complexity of procedures undertaken in order to cope with increasing demands on the system. In previous studies from North America orthopaedic surgery has been found to be the worst-offending specialty.

In this paper we review the existing literature on wrong-site surgery and analyse data from the National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Litigation Authority on 292 cases of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales. Orthopaedic surgery accounted for 87 (29.8%) of these cases. In the year 2006 to 2007, the rate of wrong-site surgery in England and Wales was highest in orthopaedic surgery, in which the estimated rate was 1:105 712 cases.

From a global point of view, chronic haematogenous osteomyelitis in children remains a major cause of musculoskeletal morbidity. We have reviewed the literature with the aim of estimating the scale of the problem and summarising the existing research, including that from our institution. We have highlighted areas where well-conducted research might improve our understanding of this condition and its treatment.

The British Orthopaedic Association has endorsed a website, www.orthoconsent.com, allowing surgeons free access to a bank of pre-written consent forms. These are designed to improve the level of information received by the patient and lessen the risk of successful litigation against surgeons and Health Trusts.

Payments by the NHS Litigation Authority continue to rise each year, and reflect an increase in successful claims for negligence against NHS Trusts. Information about the reasons for which Trusts are sued in the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery is scarce.

We analysed 130 consecutive cases of alleged clinical negligence in which the senior author had been requested to act as an expert witness between 2004 and 2006, and received information on the outcome of 97 concluded cases from the relevant solicitors. None of the 97 cases proceeded to a court hearing. Overall, 55% of cases were abandoned by the claimants’ solicitors, and the remaining 45% were settled out of court. The cases were settled for sums ranging from £4500 to £2.7 million, the median settlement being £45 000. The cases that were settled out of court were usually the result of delay in treatment or diagnosis, or because of substandard surgical technique.