Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of managing a high-profile athlete with a history of significant injuries and the pressure to return them to elite performance. The challenge lies in balancing the athlete’s desire to compete with the clinician’s responsibility to ensure long-term health and prevent re-injury, all within the framework of advanced practice standards unique to sports orthopaedics. This requires a nuanced approach to risk assessment that goes beyond immediate performance goals. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, multi-factorial risk assessment that integrates objective clinical findings, biomechanical analysis, psychological readiness, and a thorough understanding of the specific demands of the athlete’s sport. This approach prioritizes the athlete’s overall well-being and long-term career sustainability by systematically identifying and mitigating potential risks. It aligns with advanced practice standards in sports orthopaedics which emphasize a holistic view of the athlete, recognizing that return-to-play decisions are not solely based on physiological healing but also on functional capacity and the athlete’s ability to cope with the stresses of competition. This systematic evaluation ensures that all relevant factors are considered, leading to a more informed and ethically sound decision. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Focusing solely on the athlete’s subjective report of pain and perceived readiness, without objective functional testing or consideration of biomechanical factors, represents a significant failure. This approach neglects the objective evidence required for a robust risk assessment and could lead to premature return-to-play, increasing the likelihood of re-injury. Relying primarily on the coach’s pressure to return the athlete to competition, overriding clinical judgment, is a clear ethical breach. Professional responsibility dictates that the clinician’s primary duty is to the athlete’s health and safety, not to external pressures or team performance metrics. Minimizing the significance of previous injury history and focusing only on the current acute presentation overlooks crucial information about the athlete’s underlying vulnerabilities and the potential for recurrence or compensatory injuries. This narrow focus fails to adequately address the cumulative impact of past trauma on current risk. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a structured, evidence-based approach to risk assessment for return-to-play decisions. This involves establishing clear criteria for assessment, utilizing validated functional outcome measures, and engaging in open communication with the athlete, coaching staff, and other relevant stakeholders. The decision-making process should be iterative, with ongoing reassessment of risk as the athlete progresses through rehabilitation and training. Ethical considerations, particularly the principle of non-maleficence (do no harm), must guide all decisions, ensuring that the athlete’s long-term health and career are prioritized over short-term performance gains.

The evaluation methodology shows a critical need for a structured and evidence-based approach to assessing candidates for advanced practice roles in sports orthopaedics. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the desire to recognize and advance skilled practitioners with the imperative to maintain rigorous standards for patient safety and the integrity of the profession. Misjudging eligibility can lead to unqualified individuals practicing at an advanced level, potentially compromising patient care and eroding public trust. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the examination accurately reflects the necessary competencies and that the eligibility criteria are applied fairly and consistently. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the applicant’s documented experience, formal qualifications, and evidence of continuous professional development directly relevant to advanced practice in pan-regional sports orthopaedics. This includes verifying that their training and experience align with the specific learning outcomes and competency frameworks underpinning the Applied Pan-Regional Sports Orthopaedics Advanced Practice Examination. This approach is correct because it adheres to the fundamental principles of professional assessment, which demand that eligibility be determined by demonstrable competence and adherence to established standards. It ensures that candidates possess the foundational knowledge and practical skills necessary to undertake advanced practice responsibilities safely and effectively, thereby upholding the credibility of the examination and the profession. An approach that relies solely on the applicant’s self-declaration of experience without independent verification is professionally unacceptable. This fails to meet the regulatory requirement for objective assessment and opens the door to potential misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of what constitutes advanced practice. It bypasses crucial quality assurance mechanisms designed to protect the public. Another unacceptable approach is to grant eligibility based on the applicant’s seniority or length of service in a general orthopaedic setting, without specific evidence of advanced skills or specialized training in pan-regional sports orthopaedics. This conflates experience with advanced competency and ignores the specialized knowledge and skills required for this particular advanced practice role, potentially leading to a mismatch between the candidate’s capabilities and the examination’s demands. Finally, an approach that prioritizes anecdotal endorsements or informal recommendations over objective evidence of competence is also professionally unsound. While testimonials can offer insight, they cannot substitute for verifiable qualifications and demonstrated skills. Relying on such subjective measures undermines the fairness and rigor of the eligibility process and fails to provide a reliable basis for determining readiness for advanced practice. The professional reasoning framework for such situations should involve a clear, documented set of eligibility criteria derived from the examination’s stated purpose and the regulatory requirements for advanced practice. Applicants should be required to submit comprehensive portfolios demonstrating their qualifications, experience, and professional development. A standardized review process, potentially involving a panel of experienced practitioners, should be implemented to ensure consistent and fair assessment against these criteria. This systematic approach minimizes bias and ensures that only those demonstrably meeting the required standards are deemed eligible, thereby safeguarding the quality of advanced practice in sports orthopaedics.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in advanced orthopaedic practice: balancing the need for efficient and effective surgical intervention with the paramount importance of patient safety, particularly when utilizing advanced energy devices. The professional challenge lies in anticipating potential complications, understanding the limitations of instrumentation, and ensuring that all team members are adequately prepared and informed. This requires a proactive, risk-aware mindset rather than a reactive one. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive pre-operative assessment and planning phase that specifically addresses the intended use of energy devices. This includes a thorough review of the patient’s anatomy, the specific surgical procedure, the chosen energy device’s capabilities and contraindications, and potential complications. Crucially, it necessitates a clear communication protocol with the surgical team, ensuring all members understand the device’s operation, safety features, and emergency procedures. This aligns with the fundamental ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as regulatory expectations for safe surgical practice, which emphasize thorough preparation and team communication to mitigate risks. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to rely solely on the surgeon’s experience with energy devices without a specific pre-operative risk assessment for the current patient and procedure. This fails to account for individual patient variations and the unique challenges that may arise, potentially leading to unforeseen complications. It neglects the ethical duty to meticulously plan for patient safety and may fall short of regulatory requirements for due diligence in surgical planning. Another incorrect approach is to assume that standard operating room protocols are sufficient for energy device safety, without a dedicated discussion or review. While standard protocols are important, the specific nature of energy devices, with their potential for thermal injury, unintended tissue damage, or electrical hazards, often requires a more tailored safety briefing. This approach risks overlooking device-specific risks and fails to ensure that all team members are fully aware of the particular safety considerations for the chosen device in the context of the planned surgery. A further incorrect approach is to delegate the responsibility for energy device safety entirely to the scrub nurse or biomedical engineering without direct surgeon involvement in the pre-operative assessment and planning. While these individuals play vital roles, the ultimate responsibility for patient safety rests with the operating surgeon. A lack of direct surgeon engagement in understanding and communicating the risks associated with the energy device undermines the collaborative nature of surgical safety and can lead to critical information gaps. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic risk management framework. This begins with a thorough pre-operative assessment, identifying potential hazards related to the patient, the procedure, and the chosen instrumentation. A critical step is the pre-operative briefing (often referred to as a “time-out” or similar structured communication event), where specific risks associated with energy devices are discussed, including their safe operation, potential complications, and emergency management strategies. This proactive, team-based approach ensures that all members are aligned and prepared, fostering a culture of safety that is both ethically sound and compliant with regulatory expectations for high-quality patient care.

The control framework reveals a critical incident involving a severe sports-related trauma requiring immediate intervention. This scenario is professionally challenging due to the high-stakes nature of critical care and resuscitation, demanding rapid, accurate decision-making under pressure. The patient’s life is at immediate risk, necessitating adherence to established protocols to ensure optimal outcomes. The primary ethical and regulatory imperative is to provide timely and effective life-saving treatment while respecting patient autonomy and dignity. The best approach involves a systematic, evidence-based assessment and management strategy, prioritizing immediate life threats according to established trauma resuscitation guidelines. This includes rapid primary survey (Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure) followed by a secondary survey and definitive management. This approach is correct because it aligns with the fundamental principles of emergency medicine and trauma care, which are underpinned by regulatory requirements for competent and safe practice. Adherence to these protocols ensures that all critical aspects of the patient’s condition are addressed systematically, minimizing the risk of overlooking life-threatening injuries and maximizing the chances of survival and recovery. Ethical considerations of beneficence and non-maleficence are directly served by this structured, evidence-based methodology. An incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the most obvious injury without a comprehensive assessment. This fails to meet regulatory standards for thorough patient evaluation and could lead to the omission of critical, less apparent injuries, violating the duty of care and potentially causing harm. Another incorrect approach is to delay definitive treatment due to uncertainty or lack of immediate diagnostic clarity. Regulatory frameworks mandate timely intervention in critical situations; prolonged delays in a trauma setting are unacceptable and ethically unsound, as they directly compromise patient prognosis. Finally, an approach that disregards established resuscitation protocols in favour of an ad-hoc or intuitive method is professionally deficient. Such deviations from evidence-based practice are not only ethically questionable but also contravene professional guidelines and potentially legal standards for medical care, increasing the risk of adverse events. Professional decision-making in such situations requires a robust understanding of trauma algorithms, effective communication within the multidisciplinary team, and the ability to prioritize interventions based on physiological derangement and injury severity. A systematic approach, coupled with continuous reassessment and adaptation to the patient’s evolving condition, is paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common yet complex challenge in advanced orthopaedic practice: managing a significant intraoperative complication during a subspecialty procedure. The professional challenge lies in balancing immediate patient safety, the need for decisive action, and adherence to established protocols and ethical obligations. The surgeon must possess not only technical proficiency but also the critical judgment to assess the situation, communicate effectively, and make informed decisions under pressure, all while considering potential long-term implications for the patient and the healthcare team. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves immediate cessation of the primary surgical manoeuvre, thorough intraoperative assessment of the extent and nature of the vascular injury, consultation with a vascular surgery specialist if available and appropriate, and prompt implementation of a repair strategy. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by addressing the immediate life-threatening complication directly. It aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). Regulatory frameworks and professional guidelines universally mandate that surgeons must manage complications competently and seek appropriate assistance when necessary. This includes recognizing limitations and engaging multidisciplinary teams to ensure the best possible outcome. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Continuing the primary surgical manoeuvre without adequately addressing the vascular injury is professionally unacceptable. This approach demonstrates a failure to recognize and manage a critical complication, potentially leading to catastrophic blood loss and irreversible damage, violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also represents a failure to adhere to professional standards of care, which require immediate and appropriate management of intraoperative events. Attempting to manage the vascular injury solely with basic surgical techniques without seeking specialist input, when such expertise is readily available or indicated by the severity of the injury, is also professionally deficient. While a surgeon may have some knowledge of vascular repair, complex iatrogenic injuries often require specialized skills and equipment. This approach risks inadequate repair, potentially leading to delayed complications like pseudoaneurysm or thrombosis, and fails to uphold the duty to provide the highest standard of care by not leveraging available expertise. Delaying the decision to involve a vascular surgeon or to proceed with repair until the patient is hemodynamically unstable is a critical failure. This reactive rather than proactive approach exacerbates the risk to the patient. It demonstrates poor judgment in risk assessment and a failure to anticipate the potential consequences of the injury, contravening the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such a scenario should employ a structured decision-making process. This begins with immediate situational awareness and risk assessment: identify the complication, its severity, and potential immediate consequences. Next, consider the available resources and expertise, including consulting colleagues or specialists. Formulate a plan that prioritizes patient safety and addresses the complication directly, considering both immediate and potential long-term outcomes. Document all actions and communications meticulously. Finally, engage in post-operative debriefing and reflection to learn from the experience and refine future practice.

The evaluation methodology shows a critical juncture in professional development where understanding the examination’s structure and the consequences of performance is paramount. This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a candidate’s career progression and their ability to practice at an advanced level, directly impacting patient care and the reputation of the profession. Misinterpreting or disregarding the blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies can lead to significant professional setbacks, including delayed licensure, financial strain, and a loss of confidence. Careful judgment is required to navigate these policies effectively and to ensure a strategic approach to examination preparation and performance. The best professional approach involves a thorough and proactive understanding of the examination’s blueprint, scoring mechanisms, and retake policies. This includes meticulously reviewing the official examination handbook or relevant documentation provided by the examining body. A candidate should identify the weighting of each section or topic area within the blueprint to prioritize study efforts effectively, focusing on areas with higher weighting or perceived personal weakness. Understanding the scoring methodology, including any potential for negative marking or specific criteria for passing, allows for a more targeted preparation strategy. Crucially, a clear comprehension of the retake policy, including the number of allowed attempts, waiting periods between attempts, and any associated re-application fees or requirements, enables realistic planning and risk mitigation. This proactive and informed approach ensures that the candidate is not blindsided by unexpected outcomes and can make informed decisions about their study schedule and examination strategy. This aligns with ethical obligations to maintain professional competence and to engage in responsible professional development. An incorrect approach involves assuming that all sections of the examination are equally weighted and that a general understanding of orthopaedics is sufficient for success. This overlooks the explicit blueprint weighting, which is designed to reflect the core competencies and knowledge expected at an advanced practice level. Failing to prioritize study based on weighting can lead to insufficient preparation in critical areas, resulting in a lower overall score and potential failure. Another incorrect approach is to ignore the details of the scoring system, such as understanding how different question types are scored or if there are any penalties for incorrect answers. This can lead to inefficient test-taking strategies and missed opportunities to maximize one’s score. Furthermore, a failure to understand the retake policy, including the limitations on attempts or the process for re-examination, can create significant professional and financial hardship if a candidate needs to retake the exam. This demonstrates a lack of due diligence and can lead to avoidable delays in career progression. Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process when approaching any high-stakes examination. This begins with seeking out and thoroughly understanding all official documentation related to the examination. Next, they should conduct a self-assessment of their knowledge and skills against the examination blueprint. Based on this assessment and the blueprint weighting, a personalized study plan should be developed, prioritizing areas requiring the most attention. Understanding the scoring and retake policies should inform this plan, allowing for realistic goal setting and contingency planning. Regular review of progress against the study plan and seeking feedback from mentors or peers can further refine the approach. This methodical and informed process minimizes risk and maximizes the likelihood of successful examination outcomes, upholding professional standards and ethical responsibilities.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a patient with a complex, potentially career-ending injury presenting with significant anxiety and a desire for rapid, definitive treatment. The orthopaedic surgeon must balance the patient’s immediate emotional needs and expressed wishes with the ethical and professional obligation to provide evidence-based, safe, and appropriate care. The pressure to act quickly, coupled with the potential for significant financial and personal consequences for the patient, necessitates a rigorous risk assessment process that prioritizes patient well-being and professional integrity over expediency. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted risk assessment that prioritizes patient safety and informed consent. This approach begins with a thorough clinical evaluation, including detailed history, physical examination, and appropriate imaging to accurately diagnose the injury and assess its severity. Crucially, it then involves a detailed discussion with the patient about all available treatment options, including their respective risks, benefits, success rates, and potential complications. This discussion must be tailored to the patient’s understanding, allowing ample time for questions and ensuring they comprehend the implications of each choice. The surgeon must also assess the patient’s psychological readiness for surgery and their understanding of the rehabilitation process and long-term prognosis. This approach aligns with the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for patient autonomy, as mandated by professional bodies and regulatory guidelines that emphasize shared decision-making and informed consent. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding immediately with the most aggressive surgical intervention requested by the patient without a thorough assessment of alternative treatments or the patient’s overall condition represents a failure to adhere to the principle of non-maleficence. This approach risks subjecting the patient to unnecessary surgical risks and complications if less invasive or more appropriate options exist. It also bypasses the essential step of informed consent, as the patient may not fully grasp the implications of the chosen treatment compared to others. Focusing solely on the patient’s expressed desire for a quick fix and proceeding with surgery without adequately exploring the potential long-term consequences or the patient’s capacity to understand and consent to the procedure is ethically problematic. This neglects the professional duty to ensure the patient’s decision is truly informed and autonomous, potentially leading to regret or dissatisfaction later. It also fails to uphold the principle of beneficence by not ensuring the chosen treatment is the most appropriate for the patient’s overall well-being. Prioritizing the surgeon’s personal experience or preference for a particular surgical technique over a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s specific injury and overall health status is a deviation from evidence-based practice. This approach risks overlooking alternative treatments that might be safer or more effective for this individual patient, thereby potentially causing harm and failing to act in the patient’s best interest. It also undermines the principle of patient autonomy by not presenting all viable options. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive clinical assessment. This is followed by an open and honest dialogue with the patient, exploring all treatment pathways, including non-operative management, conservative surgical approaches, and more aggressive interventions, along with their associated risks and benefits. The patient’s values, goals, and understanding must be central to this discussion. A thorough assessment of the patient’s psychological state and support system is also vital. The final decision should be a shared one, grounded in evidence, ethical principles, and the patient’s informed consent, ensuring that the chosen course of action is the safest and most appropriate for their individual circumstances.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the advanced practitioner to balance the immediate need for effective patient care with the ethical and regulatory obligations surrounding the use of unvalidated preparation resources. The risk lies in potentially providing suboptimal care due to reliance on unverified information, which could lead to adverse patient outcomes and professional repercussions. Careful judgment is required to navigate the grey area between proactive learning and adherence to established standards. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and evidence-based approach to candidate preparation. This includes prioritizing resources that are explicitly recommended or endorsed by the examination board or recognized professional bodies within Pan-Regional Sports Orthopaedics. Such resources are typically vetted for accuracy, relevance, and alignment with the examination’s learning objectives and scope. This approach ensures that the practitioner is building their knowledge base on a foundation of validated information, thereby minimizing the risk of misinformation and maximizing the likelihood of successful examination performance while upholding professional standards of care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on informal online forums and anecdotal advice from peers, even those who have recently passed the examination, presents significant regulatory and ethical failures. Online forums, while potentially offering insights, are not subject to the same rigorous quality control as official materials. Information can be outdated, inaccurate, or biased, leading to a misinterpretation of examination content or preparation strategies. This failure to adhere to validated resources could breach professional standards of competence and due diligence. Similarly, exclusively using a single, unverified textbook that is not officially sanctioned by the examination board carries the risk of focusing on tangential or irrelevant material, or worse, incorporating outdated or incorrect information. This can lead to an inefficient use of preparation time and a potential deficit in knowledge crucial for passing the examination, thereby failing to meet the expected standard of professional development. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a hierarchical approach to resource selection for examination preparation. This involves first consulting the official examination syllabus and recommended reading lists provided by the examination board. Subsequently, they should seek out peer-reviewed literature and established textbooks authored by recognized experts in Pan-Regional Sports Orthopaedics. Informal resources like online forums should be used cautiously, primarily for clarification of concepts or to gain diverse perspectives, but never as a primary source of factual information or preparation strategy. A critical evaluation of all resources, cross-referencing information, and prioritizing those with demonstrable credibility are essential for effective and ethical preparation.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for a diagnosis and treatment plan with the ethical and regulatory obligation to obtain informed consent. The patient’s acute pain and desire for immediate relief can create pressure to bypass standard procedures, but doing so risks violating patient autonomy and potentially leading to suboptimal care if the patient later disagrees with the chosen course of action or experiences unforeseen consequences. Careful judgment is required to navigate this tension effectively. The best professional approach involves a structured risk assessment that prioritizes patient understanding and consent, even in urgent situations. This entails clearly explaining the suspected diagnosis, the proposed treatment options (including risks, benefits, and alternatives), and obtaining verbal or implied consent for immediate necessary interventions while simultaneously working towards obtaining formal written consent for the overall management plan. This approach respects patient autonomy, adheres to ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by ensuring the patient is aware of the implications of treatment, and aligns with regulatory expectations for patient care documentation and consent. An incorrect approach involves proceeding with significant diagnostic or therapeutic interventions without any attempt to inform the patient of the rationale, risks, or alternatives, even if the patient is in distress. This failure to communicate and obtain consent, however informal, violates the fundamental ethical principle of patient autonomy and can lead to legal repercussions if the patient later claims they were not adequately informed or did not agree to the treatment. Another incorrect approach is to delay necessary urgent care until formal written consent can be obtained, potentially exacerbating the patient’s condition. While consent is crucial, regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines generally permit implied consent for life-saving or urgent interventions when a patient is incapacitated or unable to provide explicit consent, but this should be followed by prompt efforts to inform and obtain consent as soon as feasible. A further incorrect approach is to assume that because the patient is in pain, they implicitly consent to any and all interventions suggested by the clinician. While pain may indicate urgency, it does not negate the need for a clear understanding of the proposed actions and their potential consequences. This assumption can lead to a situation where the patient feels their choices were not respected or that they were subjected to treatments they did not fully understand or agree with. The professional reasoning process in such situations should involve a rapid but thorough assessment of the patient’s condition and capacity to consent. Clinicians should prioritize clear, concise communication, explaining the most critical information first. They should then document the patient’s verbal consent or the rationale for proceeding under implied consent, and immediately initiate the process for obtaining more formal consent as the patient’s condition stabilizes or their capacity improves. This iterative approach ensures patient safety and respects their rights.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with surgical intervention, particularly when dealing with complex anatomical variations and the potential for unforeseen physiological responses during the perioperative period. The surgeon must balance the need for effective treatment with the imperative to minimise patient harm, requiring meticulous pre-operative assessment and a robust risk mitigation strategy. The best approach involves a comprehensive pre-operative assessment that integrates detailed anatomical imaging, a thorough physiological evaluation of the patient’s co-morbidities, and a proactive risk stratification process. This includes identifying potential anatomical anomalies that might complicate the surgical approach, assessing the patient’s cardiovascular and respiratory status, and considering any factors that might increase anaesthetic risk. Based on this, a tailored perioperative management plan is developed, incorporating appropriate monitoring, prophylactic measures, and contingency plans for potential intraoperative complications. This approach aligns with the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as regulatory requirements for patient safety and due diligence in surgical practice. It ensures that all known and potential risks are identified and addressed proactively, thereby optimising patient outcomes and minimising the likelihood of adverse events. An approach that relies solely on intraoperative identification of anatomical variations without adequate pre-operative imaging is professionally unacceptable. This failure to conduct thorough pre-operative anatomical assessment increases the risk of unexpected difficulties during surgery, potentially leading to prolonged operative times, increased blood loss, and damage to adjacent structures. Ethically, this demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a failure to adequately prepare for the procedure, potentially violating the duty of care. Another unacceptable approach is to proceed with surgery without a detailed assessment of the patient’s physiological status, particularly concerning co-morbidities. This oversight can lead to severe perioperative complications, such as cardiac events or respiratory distress, which could have been anticipated and managed with appropriate pre-operative optimisation and intraoperative monitoring. This represents a significant ethical and regulatory failure in patient safety. Finally, an approach that neglects to establish clear communication channels and contingency plans with the anaesthetic and nursing teams regarding potential intraoperative challenges is also professionally deficient. Effective multidisciplinary collaboration is crucial for managing complex surgical cases. A failure to ensure this coordination increases the risk of delayed or inappropriate responses to complications, jeopardising patient safety and contravening established best practices in perioperative care. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that prioritises comprehensive pre-operative evaluation. This involves a thorough review of patient history, physical examination, and all relevant diagnostic investigations. Risk assessment should be an ongoing process, starting from the initial consultation and continuing through to post-operative recovery. Open communication with the patient regarding potential risks and benefits, as well as with the entire surgical team, is paramount.