In the welter of details contained in the preceding pages the reader has, I trust, perceived certain broad shining pathways leading towards our orthopaedic lode-star, the adequate treatment of all the crippled and disabled of our community—adults and children, rich and poor. These are, as I see them, four in number: first, the emergence of our speciality from a tiny beginning, against the opposition of general surgery, to the position of an accepted branch of surgery secure in the support of all the branches of medical science. Second, the development not only of technical skill but of a humanitarian spirit which has resulted in the adequate care of the crippled child and, to a lesser degree, of the crippled adult. Third, the growth of educational facilities for undergraduate and postgraduate instruction and for research. Finally, the integration of orthopaedic surgery with all those progressive elements in the community which aim to democratize our efforts on behalf of the disabled.

It has been fascinating to trace the gradual erection of the British edifice of orthopaedics, and nostalgic to recapture a memory, however fleeting, of some of the figures who built it and taught us so much of our sum of knowledge half-way through the twentieth century—the remarkable spell of Robert Jones, the lofty, ascetic Tubby, the pugnacious Openshaw, the forceful and enthusiastic Hey Groves, the earnest but irascible Laming Evans, the equable and thoughtful Elmslie, the restless and exuberant Trethowan. It is always tempting to conclude: "those were the days." It is probably wise to do no more than record the events and leave judgment of progress to a later century. But we are being judged already and not always kindly or even truthfully. We are justified surely in priding ourselves on what has already been achieved, and on the service that orthopaedic surgery now gives to the community and promises for the future. In concern for this aspect of our work we have perhaps tended to neglect our capacity for basic research. But we are aware of this shortcoming, as witness our closer relationships with research departments of universities and royal colleges, and our increasing contacts with colleagues in the basic sciences. Finally, apart from the most intellectual snob and the pessimistic cynic, all must surely rejoice at the enthusiasm, industry and ability of our young colleagues—the orthopaedic surgeons of to-morrow.

One hundred and sixty-four cases of intramedullary nailing of the long bones have been studied with special reference to the difficulties and complications encountered.

There was one death not attributable to the method.

Two cases of pulmonal fat embolism and one case of thrombosis occurred, all in fractures of the femur.

The lessons we have learned from our mistakes can be summarised as follows:

1 . The method requires technical experience and knowledge and is not suited to inexperienced surgeons or surgeons with little fracture material at their disposal.

2. Intramedullary nailing should only be used in fractures to which the method is suited. In general, comminuted fractures or fractures near a joint are unsuitable.

3. Open reduction is preferable to closed methods.

4. The nail should never be driven in with violence. It should be removed and replaced with a new one if difficulty is encountered when inserting it.

5. In fractures of the femur the nail should be driven in from the tip of the trochanter after careful determination of the direction.

6. The nail should be introduced only to the level of the fracture before exploring and reducing the fracture.

7. Distraction of the fragments must be avoided.

8. If the nail bends it should be replaced by a new one, at least in femoral fractures.

9. If union is delayed, the fracture should be explored and chip grafts of cancellous bone placed around it.

10. Improvised nails or nails which are not made of absolutely reliable material should never be used.

11 . Make sure that the nail is equipped with an extraction hole for removal.