Alt.orthopaedics: seal clubbing edition

A number of years ago I was in a teaching session with one of the UK orthopaedic greats, Richard Villar, who was the first person that I heard voice publicly what we had all begun to realise, "let's face it, our knee replacements, overall, are just not quite as good as our hip replacements".

He was right, and mostly it was not to do with surgical technique. Like with so many operations, success is predicated on good patient selection. Dissatisfaction is in up to 25% of patients, seriously.

By a poor outcome I don't mean infection, PE or any of the 'standard' complications. I am referring to - as was Ricky - the patient who is never quite satisfied with it, they have chronic non-mechanical pain, it "just doesn't feel right".

If only we could identify this group preoperatively. It would save them (and us) from considerable stress and disappointment.

There have been some valiant efforts. Our Edinburgh colleagues have produced quite a few papers on outcomes, looking at age, concomitant back pain, rather loosely defined 'surgical factors', mental disability, preoperative patient expectations, and 'general physical well being'. With all this data, does that mean we should refuse a TKR to someone with definite pain and severe arthritis, who unfortunately is a male under 55 years with back pain, poor mental health, not in great shape, and who has an expectation that TKR will solve everything?

The objective answer might be 'yes', but when you're with them in the clinic, it's not that simple.

Some Korean surgeons carefully reviewed all this in 2016, and with reference to the vexed issue of personality, stated the following:

Gong and Dong (27) retrospectively investigated the relationship between the outcomes of TKA and patient's personality classified into 4 types: patients with extroverted personality were more satisfied than those with introverted or anxious personality after TKA. In our opinion, however, the influence of personality on the outcome of TKA is not straightforward to determine due to the difficulty of categorizing various human personalities.

They have a point.

...oh dear

What to do?

Well, one of my esteemed colleagues, whom I will refer to as TBN, had been chatting to one of the more senior trainees about this conundrum, and they came up with the following suggestion. See what you think.

If in the outpatient clinic you have decided that someone might benefit from a TKR, they get directed to a separate cubicle, where they watch a video. It shows an Inuit in a snowy barren waste, and before him lies a seal, which he is beating to death with a heavy stick, assisted by a harpoon.

If the prospective TKR patient cries out that it's appalling and no animal should be subjected to that, then you might be better off with a Pain Clinic referral.

If, on the other hand, they say that he's just getting his tea, and in addition he could probably use a warm coat and some new boots**, then they can safely be added to the TKR waiting list.

Clearly this would need to be studied prospectively with an appropriately sized cohort***, but the technology is already there. It's already better than banning people because they're a bit overweight.





**Wikipedia: Traditionally, when an Inuit boy killed his first seal or caribou, a feast was held. The meat was an important source of fat, protein, vitamin A, vitamin B12 and iron, and the pelts were prized for their warmth

***There's already evidence that CBT (Cognitive behavioural therapy) can play a role in improving outcomes of bariatric and spinal surgery. A cure for catastrophising?

Naaman orthopaedics: avoiding the complex option

Ferdinand Bol, Elisha refusing the gifts of Naaman, 1661. Rembrandthuis, Amsterdam

Most orthopaedic surgeons are renowned biblical scholars, so they will be aware that the earliest example of "keep it simple, stupid" in medicine, was probably in the Book of Kings in the Old Testament, so around 600 BC.

The story in question is that of Naaman. A recap:

Naaman was a general in the pagan Syrian army, and a confidant of the king. Unfortunately he was also a leper, a big deal then (and now). he happened to have a slave girl who was a captured Israelite, who pointed out that back where she came from - Samaria - there was a prophet who could cure him, Elisha. As nothing else had worked, Naaman went for it. He loaded up with gifts and a fancy retinue, and headed south. His first mistake was to go to the king of Israel, who got mad when Naaman quizzed him, on the reasonable grounds that he couldn't cure leprosy, so the Syrians were clearly at it.

Elisha got wind and sent a message to have Naaman visit him. So the whole convoy ended up at Elisha's place. I'll let the scripture take over here:

Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you and be clean.” 11 But Naaman was furious and went away and said, “Behold, I thought, ‘He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and cure the leper.’ 12 “Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.

I can understand it, I suppose. However, the unnamed slave girl was not impressed:

“My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then,when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” 

So he did, and it worked. No more leprosy. And I believe that the long term clinical outcome remained satisfactory, although I don't have the PROMS data.

Thank you for sticking with me this far. Why does this matter in orthopaedics? Well, here are a few examples:

1. The CSAW RCT showed that operating on subacromial pain was not really any better than not operating

2. The PROFHER trial, even at 5 years, showed no benefit in operating on proximal humeral fractures than not operating (I accept that there will be some self-evident exceptions to this)

3. The DRAFFT RCT found no benefit of locking plate fixation over MUA and K wires for distal radius fractures (I accept that there will be some self-evident exceptions to this, too)

4. (my favourite) Complex, expensive and fiddly revision femoral stems are no better than the unfashionable monobloc ones, which are also much easier to use. Modular may also have more implant specific complications.

I am very far from being a surgical Luddite, nor do I tend to favour conservative management - although it's a skill we need to teach more in certain areas. But...

...there is no intrinsic merit in complicating treatments, although there are many intrinsic potential risks.

The earthquake dislocated my hip replacement

When I was training, one of my distinguished bosses, an academic, used to tell me about one of his trainers back in the 70's who used to listen to the occasional patient in the clinic who'd not had a good outcome. He'd acknowledge their unhappiness, and indeed, empathise very effectively. When the frustrated patient eventually left the consulting room, he'd turn and face his registrar (my boss) and say sadly:  "funny fellow that".

The moral of the story - as it was emphasised to me - was never blame the patient.

Own your own mistakes and bad results. Be brave, dig deep. Good advice, I suppose.

Later, as my boss approached retirement, he'd show me an X ray - often of a knee replacement who'd got some residual pain - and say something like "I can't see much wrong with it. He's a strange fellow though. You never succeed with people like that"

For any one case he may have had a point, but he'd forgotten his own advice. Never blame the patient.

So blame can be an issue. Not in the medicolegal sense, more in terms of peer respect and apportioning embarrassment. Maybe that patient fell because your hip replacement dislocated, rather than your assertion that it dislocated because they fell. We're only human after all.

So in the spirit of making excuses for cock ups, I give you a short video of a  handy set of excuses for the next time you have had a hand in a surgical complication.  One of them will apply, I'm sure.

!!!!!!???????

This may be a dying problem, particularly if the admonitions of GO ASYP are not heeded.

Have you ever been irritated by a differential diagnosis in the notes, for a basically simple clinical  presentation, such as chest pain:

?angina
??MI
??? PE
???? reflux
?????Boerhaave's
?????? Tietze's syndrome

I could keep adding. It tends to be less of an issue in orthopaedics, rather than acute medicine and general surgery, if only because it's hard to look past a broken femur.

That said, Leo Gordon provides some rich examples, noting the history of punctuation, and the philosophy underpinning this nonsense. More usefully, he suggests punishments for this terrible crime. If I may add a few musculoskeletal essay titles to make offenders think before they do it again:

Discuss the public health debate regarding osteoporosis

Discuss the suggested 'treatments' for osteoporosis, and the evidence for their use

Discuss the similarities between osteoporosis and wrinkles

Discuss Camilla Parker Bowles' public statements on osteoporosis

I could probably find some more. Unlike Leo Gordon, I have fewer problems with exclamation marks, they rarely seem to be used in orthopaedics and trauma. We are a phlegmatic, calm bunch, ordinarily speaking.

However, if electronic records really catch on, I expect to see emojis all over them.  Perfect for that dislocated hip replacement.

My broken leg

At the morning trauma meeting, a closed spiral distal diaphyseal tibial shaft fracture was presented for tibial nailing. Working male, <25% displacement, good alignment, minimal shortening, no rotational deformity.

He was consented for internal fixation, with a nail. That is of course routinely referred to as informed consent, and if you're being appropriately thorough (not pedantic), the information required to make a balanced decision would have included the pros and cons of conservative treatment in a cast or brace. Traction, external fixation, plating are all in the mix, but lets stick to conservative v nailing.

Is there any published evidence worth having?

Why, yes there is.

What do you think the incidence of knee pain is after tibial nailing? Patients frequently mention it, and it can be a real problem. 10% would be OK, 20% perhaps. Well, in a very good study from Vancouver's ace trauma unit, of 56 patients at a minimum of 12 years, it was 73%.  That's knee pain, related to the nail, not fracture site pain. Of course, there are quite a few other potential problems with surgery and anaesthesia.

OK, there are still plenty of arguments for nailing, but I actually knew one surgeon who put circular frames on instead of nailing, because of anterior knee pain. A little extreme, but it makes the point. Here's the Vancouver paper.




But is there any good evidence for conservative treatment in this group of isolated fractures?

How about nearly 1000 patients treated with early functional bracing? Sarmiento's study is pretty impressive, with acceptable angulation, shortening and union rates. I won't go through it all, read it for yourself. Not the same follow up, but the point is, while each treatment has its own advantages and disadvantages, they are both valid, and should both be available to the patients. We have emphatically not 'moved beyond' tibial bracing because of our brilliance at tibial nailing.



For what it's worth, in these isolated  closed fractures, I would indeed fix those with an intact fibula - they nearly always angulate too much - and the very comminuted ones, plus the compartment syndromes. Everything else is up for discussion. Nailing is often 'fix and forget', and casting/bracing is not necessarily easy, but that's not the point. I've seen plenty of complications of nailing. It's not always in the patient's best interests.

Back to the trauma meeting. No-one seemed able to quote  a paper on either treatment. When asked "what would you have done if it was your tibia?", only one person spoke up. It was the anaesthetist, who'd had a problematic infection after orthopaedic surgery.  "Stick it in a cast" was her response.

And if consent was truly informed, a few other patients might well join her.

I always fix them in polytrauma, personally

Country music meets total joint replacement

Nobody closes over an actively bleeding surgical site. Do they?

In my handwritten operation note it says 'haemostasis' followed by a tick symbol. In the dictated note I use the authoritative phrase 'haemostasis secured', which has a nice feel to it. Obviously I won't get any postoperative haematoma, and if I did, which I won't, it wouldn't be my fault. Or something.

So I will never have to use the phrase  'it was dry when I closed'.

In this matrix lesson, Leo Gordon notes the unusually fruitful use of Country & Western lyrics as applied to surgery, thus creating a new composition: 'Don't the Fields All Get Drier at Closing Time'. It's true that near the end of a big case you often just want to get out of there.  Songwise, one might add 'Does My Ring Hurt Your Finger' by Charley Pride, when examining for anal tone in a patient with a spinal presentation, or 'Life Has Its Little Ups and Downs' for when the MMC results come out (which has just happened)....



....I digress. Basically, not all complications are preventable, but bleeding is one that certainly can be. It doesn't help that in orthopaedics we've been trapped by what Gus Sarmiento aptly called 'the orthopaedic-industrial complex' as a variation on the medical-industrial complex theme (AKA Big Pharma), such that we dose all our arthroplasties with chemicals of extremely dubious value on the recommendation of physicians who are, to put it politely, remote from the consequences for the patient who has a bleeding complication.

Leo also describes the dreaded 'knee-jerk suspicion of surgical sloppiness' that we cannot banish from our mind when we confront the offending haematoma. Our own suspicion, and inevitably that of our friends and peers.

I blame Big Pharma, it was definitely dry when I closed.

The Germans have a word for it

um....nice screws

There is an orthopaedic 'walk of shame', more literally a walk in the old days before digital X rays, when one had to go to the front of the room in the morning trauma meeting to put up the latest X rays of one of your hip dislocations. Every man/woman and his/her dog will then opine confidently on impossible-to-verify topics such as "your cup is too anteverted on that X ray". Their faces betray no hint of sympathy for your pain, and indeed that of the unfortunate patient. Disappointingly, there may be seen traces of joy. Dislocation, being so blatant on X ray, is probably the best example of this meme.

Thanks guys, I never knew you were all so expert on this.

However, they will regret it.

Many years ago, one of my bosses who was an erudite and witty man, and something of a Germanophile, introduced me to the now ubiquitous subject of schadenfreude. I have seen countless examples since then. If guarded against, it induces the salutary virtue of humility, something all doctors, especially surgeons, should cultivate.

Schadenfreude is a human response, but also a human failing. As Leo Gordon tells us in his vivid example below:

The gods of surgery giveth, and the gods of surgery taketh away.

You have been warned.