Talk:Orthopedic surgery

message: The mention of Harborview Hospital in Seattle was such that it did not link to the corresponding article.  I have reworded it.  I hope that's ok.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.32.251 (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seattle Harborview

message: --> SPELLING QUESTION: WHY IS THIS WORD SPELLED Orthopaedic AND Orthopedic AT SEEMINGLY RANDOM TIMES, BOTH IN THE ARTICLE, AND IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testing123abc (talk • contribs) 24 December 2005
jayda has a big pp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.168.62 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Orthopaedics and most other surgical subjects have at least two aspects which would benefit from a standardized approach. One subject is the conditions that may be treated surgically and the other is an account of the operation (procedure) that a surgeon might perform. To help us get organized I propose the following template for orthopaedic procedures viz Name of Procedure; Description; Synonyms; Technique; Variations; Indications; Contra-Indications; Pre-Operative Work-up; Post-Operative Rehabilitation; Timecourse of recovery; Risks and Complications; Controversies; Prognosis; History.
I have used this template for Knee replacement and would appreciate comments.
A template for conditions might be one that is common to all medical conditions not just orthopaedic ones. However, because the key issue in potentially surgical conditions is the question of operative indications I think that a specifically surgical template for conditions is justifiable and might be 
Name
Definition
Synonyms
Incidence
Pathogenesis and predisposing factors
Pathology
Stages
Classification
Natural History/Untreated Prognosis
Clinical Features
Investigation
Non-Operative Treatment
Risks of Non-Operative Treatment
Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment
Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry)
Risks of Operative Treatment
Prognosis Post Operation
Complications
Management
Prevention 
History n
Comments? Provisionally I have copied the template to the talk page of all the orthopaedic stub pages I could find.--Mylesclough 05:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: What seems to have happened regarding the spelling is now unfortunately messy.  There is contention about whether Nightstallion made the right decision or not.  I agree that simply based on the math Nightstallion's decision was questionable, but then again Knowledge Seeker is (or has been) a physician in the US (see earlier versions of user page e.g. )
so ought to have more idea than most about what it's actually called in US English, and Nightstallion could legitimately have given weight to this.  But whichever way one might interpret the discussion so far, hopefully we all agree that it has only involved a small number of people, and I think that if there is disagreement it would be beneficial to attract more people to the discussion so as to result in a decision which will be more readily accepted as consensus.  This is particularly important as the spelling appears in a number of places, and editing without consensus is liable to lead to inconsistencies, which I really think we ought to strive to avoid.  These places are:
* the text within the article
* the name of the article
* the name of the category
* (maybe others?)
What is the best way to involve more people?  I see that there is the RfC process, but it gives me the impression of being generally used for issues which have become rather heated, and I think it would be a great shame to categorize this essentially amicable disagreement in that way, so it would be nice to use something rather more informal to invite people to visit this talk page.  I am going to post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.  Other suggestions very welcome.
Arbitrary username 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You (Arb. username) and I are both fairly new here, so this might be the blind leading the blind, but my impression is that it's policy to be very careful about involving other people. "Getting out the vote," for example, is against policy, I'm pretty sure (can't find a link to that part of policy right now). I agree it would help to have more people involved, but I lean more strongly than before towards thinking the article (and spelling in category name) should be left as is (after my revert of Nightstallion's move, that is). This represents a big change. One thing, though: you refer to a notion of what it's "actually called in US English." We don't need experts for that. We know that both are acceptable. And, speaking as a linguist, I'd be willing to bet that, if anything, the -ped- spelling is gaining the upper hand, since English (all dialects) are moving in the direction of reducing ae to e. Regardless, the orthopedics is definitely a correct spelling. That's not at issue. BrianinStockholm 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment that I assume there is a difference between "getting out the vote" (i.e. inviting specific groups of people who are likely to support a particular POV), and widening the readership in a neutral way.  At least, I sure hope there is!  Anyway, you'll obviously realize that I disagree with your reversion of the move, but pending wider discussion I'll merely state it here because I don't think it would help anyone for us to get into a cycle of reversions.  Regards, Arbitrary username 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, widening the readership in a neutral way would probably be fine. For the record: I believe in ruthless adherence to principle, so I'll revert my own revert of NS's revert if sentiment moves in that direction! Although, technically, I'm not sure what the operative principle is here, with the vote "officially" being closed, and the person who "took the pulse" having admitted he might have been wrong (to the extent that he suggested it would be OK for me to revert his change....) Complicated! Is the situation precisely as it would have been if no change had been made at all? If so, you'd need to call a new vote, but that itself, might be against policy, for obvious reasons (John Kerry can't call for a new election next week).... :-/ BrianinStockholm 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Yes, I am (still) a resident physician (I still have the category listed on my user page). I don't have a strong preference to either spelling, but overall, as I mentioned above, I prefer orthopaedic in this case, though I am American and normally use American spellings. While American and British spellings should not be lightly switched, I don't think this is a simple American vs. British issue. Orthopedic is certainly less common in American English than orthopaedic, but see for instance its Merriam-Webster entry, compared to the one, say, for gynaecology, which is listed as a British variant. Undoubtedly both spellings are "correct". My personal philosophy in naming and spelling, both on Wikipedia and in real life, tends to give more credence to respected authorities or professional societies than to overall surveys of usage. Since my perception is many orthopaedic surgeons in the United States tend to use the ae spelling and professional societies like the AAOS use it, my preference is for that spelling. That said, there are many who use the e spelling and perhaps it will become more well-established with time (I am not a linguist and cannot pass judgment on this). Which spelling is ultimately used is not very important to me. I think it would be very appropriate to seek feedback (I'd recommend the clinical medicine WikiProject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi.  Just thought I'd pop my head up.  A long time ago I read something about spelling  with respect to english dialect variations - I'm not sure if it was a Wikipaedia policy or simply a suggestion, but it seemed quite sensible at the time - so here it is:  Go with the spelling you use regionally, as long as it's correct (ie in a dictionary).  Most people are aware that different english dialects have differing use of dipthongs and tend to allow for that in online searching.  I'm training in orthopaedic surgery and so I routinely use both spellings , for example, in Medline searches etc.  As long as there is consistency in the article it shouldn't really matter which spelling is used.  And if you create an article who's name has recognised alternate spellings, create redirects in consideration of others who may want the information.  That's it! Happy wiki-ing Mattopaedia 05:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Per WP:ENGVAR, once one spelling type has been established, we generally do not change it.  I have therefore changed ti back. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thedaveformula, from what I can tell, "Orthopaedics" is NOT the original spelling if the word was coined by M. Andre because he spelled it the French way, Orthopedie, and soon after British classicists adopted the more erudite latinate spelling with ae. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: There needn't be any debate on this; WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Fill your boots, then. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took the matter to the board for consultation but could not convince the majority. I maintain I am right on this issue however I am will contribute to improving this page using the American spelling because I believe the subject matter itself deserves attention inspite of the spelling. I walk away from this spelling debate with my head held high but will not walk away from Wikipedia because I believe I have much to contribute. Thedaveformula (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling again - need more people's views 

message: Is there anything that can be done to discourage linkspam (unnecessary external links) from this subject area? I find it mildly annoying that this page keeps needing to be reverted. Dr Aaron 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently exploring options.  The spammer is using a dynamic IP, so it is difficult to block them that way.  We could put partial protection on this page, but this particular spammer is hitting a number of other pages.  Until my latest attempt goes through, the best we can do is keep an eye on the changes and keep thwarting him. --Mdwyer 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: An important brief digression is essential here: The hidden consternation implicit in the above description of orthopedics is that this vast area of medicine, most of which is non-surgical, is viewed herein through minds dominantly predisposed to surgical approaches. That reality expresses medicine's Fundamental Flaw, from which the Pain Pandemic - the countless who unnecessarily persist in pain and impairment – emanates. Future historians may well call this last century a time of unnecessarily perpetuated pain.
In contrast, comparable specialties such as neurology and neurosurgery; internal medicine and general surgery conjointly emerged balanced, dynamic and mutually respectful. But for a number of reasons, this did not happen in orthopedics. This story began about a century and a half ago when during one of medicine's low intellectual ebbs clinical biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system through hands-on examination and treatment was repudiated, skills that require special palpatory training and manipulative reasoning. Thus, osteopathy reluctantly emerged and then chiropractic to which traditionalism reacted with reflexive antagonism instead of reflecting and performing a "systems analysis" to study what had gone wrong. The medical scene became a war zone of confusion that continues to confound (realized or not) everywhere that Westernized medicine is practiced. Eventually, Orthopaedic Medicine developed as a discipline within medicine. Its scope includes caring for the commonest of conditions, the “aches and pains” that orthopedic surgeons willingly admit disinterests them. Unquestionably, Orthopaedic Medicine’s "Father" is Dr. James Cyriax, deceased, a British physician, author of the Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine I & II. Unfortunately, "Jimmie" fell victim to his greatness and eventually concluded that if he could conceive of assembling such an encyclopedia of knowledge - and develop extraordinarily powerful fundamental tools for clinical examination -then all of his reasoning must have been of the same stature. It wasn't true, and he became deservedly controversial. The story is long one and requires its own space. (This statement is initially necessary because, in some minds, this controversy colors the major issue. It should not. While Dr. Cyriax was the first to begin codifying the discipline, his work does not circumscribe it.) 
It will be highly desirable for the purposes of Wikipedia if an Orthopaedic Medicine section be established for the full elicitation of this critically important discipline whose guidelines fulfill the requirements of a specialty. In essence, the musculoskeletal system (it can be more accurately but more complexly, described) can also be viewed as a machine where the joints, the ligaments etc. have equivalents. While problems of alignment may be expressed as pain and dysfunction, or squeaks, the effective approaches are similar, and restorative rebalancing becomes first obligation. I phrase, 'the task of the musculoskeletal clinician is to restore appropriate motion. All the rest is commentary.' The necessity is to follow all clues that are evident and commensurate with the patient's complaint. The traditional orthopedic examination is too coarse to distinguish the subtle abnormalities that traditionalism did not historically accept because "they" were doing such things. The realization is essential that the final book on the orthopaedic clinical examination has not been written. 
As one example of a cause for self-perpetuating therapeutic failure: the spine came to be clinically examined as if it were like a spring, with a unitary motion. The fact, of course, is that the vertebral column is a complex, multi-articulated structure whose small individual movements are normally reflexively coordinated into movements that appear to be unitary. That stated, the primary purpose of this digression is completed at this time. With respect and gratitude for the reader's attention, you are now returned to the orthopedic surgical perspectives. Contributed by Paul H. Goodley, M.D.
: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please get a user account. You will have more rights and be taken more seriously. Your comments above are interesting, but are not written in a style suitable for the article. They can be discussed here, and if anything usable is developed, it can be added to the article a little bit at a time. -- Fyslee 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Goodley's comments 

message: I just noticed that this whole page got tagged as {unreferenced} - I think such a tag should be accompanied by a more detailed explanation on the talk page. In addition, there are lots of referenced elements to this page so such a tag might be better placed before a specific section rather than the whole page.
As such, I reverted the {unreferenced} tag. Dr Aaron 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced tag

message: By this edit an anon IP removed a big chunk of the "History" section, with what remained being obviously garbled (ending in mid-sentence, for example).  The deleted material included what appeared to be some commercial puffery but also much valid information.  I'm going to restore the entire deleted text and then review the part that seems dubious to me. Goodguy2 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable edits to "History" section 

message: Does orthopaedic surgery mean the surgery is on children, or is the word just there by historical coincidence? ƕ (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children? 

message: While I do not doubt the contributions that Dr Chitranjan Singh Ranawat has made in the field of orthopedics, I am not sure how inserting his name in a sentence would add value to the article. After Googling his name, this is the best description that I could find . Iiamjon (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable edit to "Joint replacement" section 

message: Anyone else think that we should just remove info from salary surveys completely from this article? Of course, if we include such information, we're going to use reliable sources rather than sites like averageorthopedicsurgeonsalary.com --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, remove until a reliable source is found. Yobol (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Salary information

message: There appears to be two separate clusters of languages on this topic (see below).  Although they have different titles, their contents have mostly overlapping coverage. The languages that appear in both clusters (es, it) make inconsistent choices of coverage under the two titles. There is no clear rationale for this split. These two clusters should be merged. From past discussion it appears that this article was previously titled Orthopaedics or Orthopedics, which should be the preferred name. 
 orthopedic surgery (Q15218776) 
    ar جراحة العظام
    ca Cirurgia ortopèdica
    ckb نەشتەرگەریی ئۆرتۆپێدیک
    da Ortopædkirurgi
    en Orthopedic surgery
    es Cirugía ortopédica
    it Chirurgia ortopedica
    mk Ортопедска хиругија
    no Ortopedisk kirurgi 
 orthopedics (Q216685) 
    be Артапедыя
    bg Ортопедия
    cs Ortopedie
    de Orthopädie
    el Ορθοπεδική
    eo Ortopedio
    es Ortopedia
    et Ortopeedia
    eu Ortopedia
    fa ارتوپدی
    fi Ortopedia
    fr Orthopédie
    ga Ortaipéide
    he אורתופדיה
    hi विकलांग शल्यचिकित्सा
    hr Ortopedija
    hy Օրթոպեդիա
    id Bedah ortopedi
    io Ortopedio
    it Ortopedia
    ja 整形外科学
    ka ორთოპედია
    kn ಮೂಳೆ ಶಸ್ತ್ರಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ
    ko 정형외과
    ky Ортопедия
    lt Ortopedija
    lv Ortopēdija
    ne हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा
    nl Orthopedie
    no Ortopedi
    pi हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा
    pl Ortopedia
    pt Ortopedia
    ro Ortopedie și traumatologie
    ru Ортопедия
    sa हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा
    scn Mèdicu di l'ossa
    sh Ortopedija
    sk Ortopédia
    sl Ortopedija
    so Addimo-yaqaan
    sr Ortopedija
    sv Ortopedi
    te కీళ్ళ సంబంధిత శస్త్రచికిత్స
    th ศัลยศาสตร์ออร์โทพีดิกส์
    tr Ortopedi
    uk Ортопедія
    zh 骨科  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.110.88 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two disjoint language groups 

message: I just came across this article. I couldn't care less what it's named, but the fact that it uses both spellings throughout is really really odd on here. As such I see three options:
# Keep as is
# Keep name, and change all uses to Orthopedic
# Move and change all uses to Orthopaedic
I'm in favor of either 2 or 3, obviously. I've done this as an RFC to get it wide, and included it in style to have that group on here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policy WP:ART1VAR might have an answer to this. -- I dream of horses    @  04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Hmmmmm.... WP:ART1VAR suggests we should pick option 2 or 3, right? Do you have a preference for 2 or 3? NickCT (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree with  below; however, ultimately whether two or three will end up going to consensus, I think. -- I dream of horses    @  14:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Actually, I'm wondering whether we should just make the change. Looks like this was last discussed in 2011. Also looks like we have a local consensus of three editors here. I'd motion that we close this RfC and move to make the change if there are no dissenting voices in the next 24hr. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in that case we should do 2 if we don't get dissent by 14:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I believe leaving it as is is confusing and is the worse option. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the policy WP:ART1VAR might have an answer to this. -- I dream of horses    @  04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Hmmmmm.... WP:ART1VAR suggests we should pick option 2 or 3, right? Do you have a preference for 2 or 3? NickCT (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree with  below; however, ultimately whether two or three will end up going to consensus, I think. -- I dream of horses    @  14:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Actually, I'm wondering whether we should just make the change. Looks like this was last discussed in 2011. Also looks like we have a local consensus of three editors here. I'd motion that we close this RfC and move to make the change if there are no dissenting voices in the next 24hr. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in that case we should do 2 if we don't get dissent by 14:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: *Oppose. Either variant is probably fine, but the current title is probably better. Google Books is actually an excellent way to answer the question: How is this word spelled in reliable English-language sources? Which is really what we're after here - not just how do experts refer to something in their own world. And Google Books shows that orthopedic is used at more than a 2:1 ratio over orthopaedic.And WP:COMMONALITY cuts both ways. While ae is certainly found in a healthy minority of American books, e is found in a similarly healthy minority of British books. (Sorry rest of world - that's all that Google Books lets me zone in on.) Google Scholar prefers ae to e by less than 2:1, with a smaller corpus. And following JAMA and NEJM is hardly "dumbing down" anything.We already have the more common spelling, and a spelling that is universally recognized. This one ain't broke. Dohn joe (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Just want to see video of anterior and posterior hip surgery 2601:3CA:C201:32E0:F11A:D785:5735:219E (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hip surgery