Search

Background: In 1999, the British Association of Surgical Oncology (BASO) published its guidelines for the management of metastatic bone disease in breast cancer in the UK, highlighting the role of the orthopaedic surgeon as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team., Aim: To establish the workload to our department of metastatic bone disease., Methods: A prospective study was performed over a 6-month period aiming to study factors affecting length of stay, whether BASO recommendations were being adhered to for metastatic breast disease and whether BASO recommendations could be extended to other forms of metastatic bone disease., Results: 36 patients were referred to the orthopaedic department during the study period. The majority of the patients were referred as emergencies, 83% of patients were seen by an orthopaedic consultant on the day of referral but only 27% were seen by the orthopaedic cancer liaison consultant. Only 16 patients required a therapeutic operative intervention and length of in-patient stay was increased by not having a known primary carcinoma at admission. Patients with bone metastases discussed at the breast cancer multidisciplinary meeting were also studied as were patients with bone metastases presenting to the oncology service. It was found that there was little overlap between these groups and our study group., Conclusions: Metastatic bone disease does form a workload to the orthopaedic department and BASO recommendations are generally followed for breast disease. The BASO recommendations could be extended to other tumours; however, it should be recognised that there is a significant workload involved and a need for sufficient resources to allow a high quality and timely service.

Background: The production of clinical guidelines is increasing and will continue to do so with the introduction of clinical governance. In 1997, the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) and the British Association of Plastic Surgeons (BAPS) published joint guidelines on the management of open tibial fractures. It is not known whether these guidelines reached their target audience, or indeed influenced clinical practice., Methods: We determined the effectiveness of these guidelines by sending a postal questionnaire survey to 172 orthopaedic surgeons., Results: Only 57% of consultants were aware of the guidelines, 70% of registrars and 25% of staff grades. Less than 29% of orthopaedic consultants would choose to consult the plastic surgical team pre-operatively in the management of an open tibial fracture and only 43% would seek plastic surgical involvement at all. The primary aim of increasing multidisciplinary communication has not been achieved., Conclusions: The awareness of, and adherence to, these guidelines is sub-optimal. This clearly has implications for both the future management of open tibial fractures and the further production of guidelines.