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.

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.

The April 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: scientific writing needed in orthopaedic papers; antiseptics and osteoblasts; thromboembolic management in orthopaedic patients; nicotine and obesity in post-operative complications; defining the “Patient Acceptable Symptom State”; and cheap and nasty implants of poor quality.

The February 2014 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: single posterior approach for severe kyphosis; risk factors for recurrent disc herniation; dysphagia and cervical disc replacement or fusion; hang on to your topical antibiotics; cost-effective lumbar disc replacement; anxiolytics no role to play in acute lumbar back pain; and surgery best for lumbar disc herniation.

This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.

The June 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: failure in metal-on-metal arthroplasty; minimal hip approaches; whether bisphosphonates improve femoral bone stock following arthroplasty; whether more fat means more operative time; surgical infection; vascularised fibular graft for osteonecrosis; subclinical SUFE; and dentists, hips and antibiotics.

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing was developed in the 1990s by surgeons in Birmingham, UK, as a surgical solution to the problem of osteoarthritis in younger, more active patients. Early results were promising and the procedure gained in popularity. However, adverse reports of soft-tissue reaction and failure started to appear from 2008 onwards. Surgeons may be asked to write medico-legal reports on the surgical aspects of an individual case for claimant lawyers or in defence for the NHSLA or indemnity insurers. The purpose of this article is to cover some of the aspects of the operation that may be considered in such medico-legal reports.