Conflicts of interest in medicine has created deep concerns about the integrity of medicine and raised doubts about the trustworthiness of the medical professional. New stories of conflict of interest in medicine have become a commonplace. The interactions between the medical professional and the biomedical device as well as the pharmaceutical industry has become so pervasive that the primary interest of the medical professional in protecting and promoting the welfare of the patient has been compromised. The professional judgement and actions have been influenced by secondary interests, the major fungible and quantifiable being financial interest. The industry influence not only affects the way we practice orthopaedics but also affects medical education and peer review publications. Peer review publications have been shown to exaggerate benefits of the industry products while at the same time downplaying the risks. These conflicts of interest in orthopaedic surgery are particularly common in spinal and joint replacement surgery where joint replacement has been described as a ‘fashion trade’. The introduction of new products appears to be an uncontrolled experiment which has been hijacked by large corporations. This article explores the unhealthy pervasive interaction between the orthopaedic surgeon and the medical devices as well as the pharmaceutical industry. It highlights how the biomedical and the pharmaceutical industry dominate all aspects of the healthcare system. With its wealth and political clout, its influence is present everywhere, from the use of devices and drugs, research, publications, trials, education and even formulation of CGPs.
Ethics, Medical ; Professional Competence ; Professionalism ; Technology, Pharmaceutical ; Delivery of Health Care

Chronic low back pain is a common, disabling and costly health problem. The treatment of chronic low back is difficult and is often ineffective. For treatment to be effective the cause of the pain has to be established but unfortunately in 80% to 95% of the patients the cause cannot be determined despite the existence of modern imaging techniques. A pathoanatomical diagnosis which fits into a classical disease model where successful treatment can be carried out, can only be made in 5% to 7% of the patients. The back pain in the rest of the patients where no pathoanatomical diagnosis can be made is often labelled, unscientifically, as chronic low back pain. Despite the existence of sophisticated imaging techniques and a plethora of diagnostic test the source of pain in patients with nonspecific back pain cannot be established. There exist no causal relationship between imaging findings of degenerated disc, lumbar facet arthritis, spondylosis, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis, to the pain in these patients. Surgical treatment of non-specific back pain where no pathoanatomical diagnosis has been established is bound to fail. Therefore the outcome of spinal fusion in these patients can be no better than nonsurgical treatment. Spinal fusion is a major surgery which can be associated with significant morbidity and occasionally with mortality. Yet there is rapid rise in the rates of spinal fusion. There is a growing tension between ethics and conflicts of interest for surgeons. The spine, unfortunately, has been labelled as a profit centre and there are allegations of conflicts of interest in the relationship of doctors with the multi-billion dollar spinal devices industry. The devices industry has a significant influence on not only research publications in peer review journals but also on decisions made by doctors which can have a detrimental effect on the welfare of the patient.
Low Back Pain

Subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS) is a commonly diagnosed disorder of the shoulder. Though this disorder has been known for a long time, it remains a poorly understood entity. Over the years several hypotheses have been put forward to describe the pathogenesis of SAIS but no clear explanation has been found. Two mechanisms, the extrinsic and intrinsic mechanism, have been described for the impingement syndrome. The intrinsic mechanism theories which deny the existence of impingement are gaining popularity in recent years. The various shoulder tests used to diagnose SAIS have low specificity with an average of about 50%. Meta-analysis shows that neither the Neer sign nor the Hawkins sign has diagnostic utility for impingement syndrome. Several randomised controlled trials have shown that the outcome of treatment of SAIS by surgery is no better than conservative treatment. Physiotherapy alone can provide good outcome which is comparable to that achieved with surgery without the costs and complications associated with surgery. Since decompression with surgery does not provide any additional benefits as compared to conservative treatment for patients with SAIS, the impingement theory has become antiquated and surgical treatment should have no role in the treatment of such patients. There are calls by some practitioners to abandon the term impingement syndrome and rename it as anterolateral shoulder pain syndrome. It appears that SAIS is a medical myth. There are others who called SAIS as a clinical illusion.