Faculty Bibliography

Within a two-week period, two sales representatives from competing pharmaceutical companies visited the office of an orthopaedic group practice. One representative was elated that the group had been steadily prescribing his company's new arthritis medication. The physicians assumed that the representative was speaking about the number of sample packs used by their office. Several days later, a competing drug representative visited the office and complained that several physicians in the group were "not thinking of my company's medication first." The physicians were perplexed and asked him how he had come by that information. After multiple attempts at evading the question, the representative explained that pharmaceutical companies pay the drugstores for such data. Although unwilling to disclose the details of the arrangement, he did inform the physicians that the pharmaceutical companies know exactly which physicians are writing which prescriptions. He assured the physicians that patients' names are not disclosed. The physicians spoke to several pharmacists and other pharmaceutical representatives, who confirmed the practice.

R. C. is an orthopaedic resident in a teaching program. At the orthopaedic clinic, he examines an elderly, otherwise healthy patient who requires a total hip replacement. He presents the patient to his covering attending physician, who agrees to supervise the joint replacement surgery. The resident discusses the surgery with the patient. The procedure, risks, goals, benefits, and alternatives are presented. The patient agrees to proceed with the surgery. The resident performs the surgical procedure with the attending physician's assistance. The surgery lasts forty minutes longer than the attending physician's usual surgical time, and the blood loss is 300 milliliters greater. Postoperative radiographs demonstrate a well positioned press-fit acetabular component and a cemented femoral component in 6 degrees of varus.

J. S. is a sixty-five-year-old man who was treated at another hospital with arthroscopic debridement of an infection at the site of a right total knee replacement and was placed on long-term intravenous antibiotics. He signed out of that hospital against medical advice. One month later, he presented at our hospital with recurrent sepsis of his knee. Knee aspiration yielded frank pus with a white blood-cell count of 80,000 cells per cubic millimeter. Gram-staining demonstrated gram-positive cocci. The patient was placed on intravenous antibiotics. The patient appeared cachectic, reporting a sixty-pound (27.2-kilogram) weight loss over the past year. A metastatic workup, including a chest radiograph, an abdominal sonogram, prostate-specific antigen, a complete blood-cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and a purified-protein-derivative skin test, was negative; however, an occult neoplasm could not be excluded. The patient displayed episodes of confusion, disorientation, and argumentative behavior. Medical and psychiatric consults did not determine whether this behavior was due to previous substance abuse or a primary psychiatric disorder. Nevertheless, psychiatrists at our institution determined that the patient lacked decisional capacity. Attempts were made to salvage the knee replacement, and the patient underwent an extensive surgical debridement of the knee with insertion of drains. He was placed on intravenous antibiotics. The plan was for the patient to be managed with long-term oral suppressive antibiotics. After treatment, the patient was transferred to a skilled-nursing facility. Psychiatrists at the nursing facility deemed the patient to have decisional capacity, and the patient was permitted to leave the facility. He was discharged without antibiotics. Several weeks later, he presented at our hospital with a grossly purulent knee. The orthopaedic options were reviewed with the patient and his brother. Removal of the components was recommended. The patient did not want to "lose" his knee replacement, and he refused surgical intervention. We did not believe that the infection could be either controlled or eradicated with the components in place.

H. K. is a ninety-two-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease and mild hypertension. She resides at a nursing home, where she transfers from bed to chair with maximal assistance. She presents to our emergency department with a painful right hip. Physical examination demonstrates a confused, elderly patient with significant right hip pain and shortening and external rotation of the lower extremity. Radiographs demonstrate a displaced intertrochanteric hip fracture. The patient lacks the capacity for informed consent. Her family is contacted to obtain consent for insertion of a compression screw. The family refuses to give consent, stating that the patient is too old and the surgery is too dangerous.

Because our actions as physicians have far-reaching consequences, and because society allows us to do things to others that no one else is free to do, physicians' professional activities fall under the domain of ethical evaluation. We are charged with the obligation to use specialized scientific knowledge, to work in concert with others, and to act for the good of our patients. In fact, acting for the good of our patients is the central tenet of ethical medical behavior. What constitutes the good of the patient, however, is not always clear. In general, we act to limit disease, restore function, alleviate suffering, and prolong life. We understand fully, however, that these goals may conflict with one another. Judgment about what is right for a particular patient leads us to another crucial consideration of ethical behavior, namely, respect for patient autonomy. We recognize that individuals have the right to control their own destiny. Patients have a right, therefore, to make choices about their medical care. As physicians, we must respect those rights. As such, certain ethical behavior is expected of us. We must be honest with our patients. We must provide them with accurate information on which to base their decisions. We must convey to them information about their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, even when it is unpleasant to do so. We must be open about our expertise and level of training for a particular procedure. We must respect their privacy and their right to withhold information even from family and friends. In short, we must respect their choices, even if we may disagree with those choices. To truly respect patient autonomy is to understand that, ultimately, the final decision lies with the patient.

We present the case of a 66-year-old man with primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the right femur that developed following orthotopic liver transplant, while on immunosuppressive therapy. The diagnosis was suggested on the basis of the MRI findings and confirmed by open biopsy. He was treated successfully with local radiotherapy and has remained disease free for 14 months after the onset of the disease

Modular bipolar prostheses were developed to address the problems of loosening, cartilage wear, and protrusio which were seen with single unit endoprostheses. Modular unipolar prostheses address many of these problems and are significantly less expensive than the bipolar prosthesis. Recent data suggest that use of the modular unipolar prosthesis is indicated in elderly patients with low demands.