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.

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.

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.

Arthroscopy has become a routine surgical procedure, used as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the treatment of joint problems. This article discusses its origins and looks at how it is currently used.

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.

A comprehensive study of osteology remains a cornerstone of current orthopaedic and traumatological education. Osteology was already established as an important part of surgical education by the 16^th century. In order to teach anatomy and osteology, the corpses of executed criminals were dissected by the praelector anatomiae of the Amsterdam Guild of Surgeons. Magnificent anatomical atlases preserve the knowledge obtained from these dissections. We present an overview of the most authoritative works of Vesalius, Bidloo, Cheselden, and Albinus authored in the 16^th, 17^th and 18^th centuries. At that time a knowledge of osteology was necessary to pass the ‘master-exam’ in order to become a surgeon, and anatomical teaching was traditionally based on the practice of dissection. In the modern era, anatomical dissection and illustrations are largely being replaced by three-dimensional imaging and computer simulations, with an unfortunate trend in current curricula away from the established teaching technique of dissection. Education through the practice of dissection, particularly for future surgeons, remains integral to the development of tissue handling techniques, understanding of anatomical variation, and furthering of spatial awareness skills. With this review, we seek to remind contemporary surgeons of the lessons we can learn from our predecessors who valued education through anatomical dissection.

In a global environment of rising costs and limited funds, robotic and computer-assisted orthopaedic technologies could provide the means to drive a necessary revolution in arthroplasty productivity. Robots have been used to operate on humans for 20 years, but the adoption of the technology has lagged behind that of the manufacturing industry. The use of robots in surgery should enable cost savings by reducing instrumentation and inventories, and improving accuracy. Despite these benefits, the orthopaedic community has been resistant to change. If the ergonomics and economics are right, robotic technology just might transform the provision of joint replacement.