ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2026
Nails, Plates, and Legal Claims: The Medicolegal Aspects of Orthopaedic Implants.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Orthopaedic implants have revolutionised patient care but also pose significant medicolegal challenges. Issues related to implant selection, failure, consent, and documentation frequently result in legal disputes, requiring orthopaedic surgeons to be well-versed in relevant medicolegal principles. Materials and Methods: A narrative review was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and legal databases for articles, case reports, and guidelines related to the medicolegal aspects of orthopaedic implants. Emphasis was placed on Indian legislation, landmark case laws, and global best practices to provide a comprehensive overview. Results: The review identified common medicolegal pitfalls including inadequate patient counselling, poor implant documentation, and failure to adhere to protocols. Analysis of case laws highlighted the increasing judicial expectations from surgeons regarding transparency and informed consent. The need for robust communication and meticulous record-keeping emerged as critical preventive measures. Conclusion: Orthopaedic implants entail unique medicolegal responsibilities. Legal awareness, effective patient communication, and institutional safeguards are essential to minimise litigation risk and enhance patient care. Greater emphasis on these aspects can help orthopaedic surgeons to practice more confidently in an increasingly regulated environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.