McGlamry & Chang... new editions?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

TabathaTalus

New Member
10+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So, we've been hearing rumors about what textbooks to get for our 3rd year and externships. I believe the Chang text is required for our 3rd year, but I also heard a new edition will be released soon... anyone know when? I really want McGlamry, but I also heard a new edition is on the way for that book as well. Can anyone confirm the estimated release dates for the new editions? Also, any thoughts on whether the PI manual or Pocket Podiatrics is best for reference in clinic? Thank you!
 
I know nothing about the release date of those texts, however I would also be interested in finding out. I have McGlamry's, however I have been putting off purchasing Chang's text because a new version will be out soon.
I have both the PI manual and Pocket Podiatrics. They are both very useful, but different. The PI manual is more academic and great for review (ie studying for Part II boards), however Pocket Podiatrics is great for a quick reference guide because it has a lot of easy to understand pictures. If I had to pick only one, I would probably pick the PI manual, however there are things in each of them that aren't covered well in the other. Hope that helps a little!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
To the OP, the PI manual is worth its weight in gold. I read it cover to cover during 3rd year pod surgery class... and reviewed it before/during clerkships. I browsed it for residency interviews, then pt2 and pt2 boards. I still study it before ABPS in training exams, etc.

For the texts, McGlamrys text and Presby Manual booklet (get from upperclassmen at your school) are still good but both 10+ years old. In my estimation (I read a bit), the main things that have changed are:
-the pharm in presby is badly outdated
-the layered dissections, long incisions, and fairly extensive periosteal strippings in McGlamry are failry outdated (before anybody flames me, read this ortho mainstay text - esp the foreward section), go to pod conf (ACFAS>>>APMA for surg education IMHO) or ortho conf, or just talk to most younger attendings

Definitely read some of McGlamrys. Honestly, if I had to sum it (or the Coughlin 2vol text) up in one word, that would probably be "exhaustive," but it has good info, anatomy doesn't change, and it's still probably the text for your pod school surgery class (which almost all attendings therefore read). When a new edition arrives, it surely will remain that way.

***However, if you read a lot, as you should for the sake of your career and your patients' fate someday, you should sorta start to "question everything" (but definitely not always verbally 😉 ). Listen to everybody, but in the end, ask yourself what makes intuitive sense to you - and for the patient. That isn't always what's "proven" in the literature or described in every text... but usually it will be close. There's always multiple ways to skin the cat (err, foot in our case)... bear that in mind. FYI, your pod school library - and the library of any clerkships you visit - will have McGlamrys and a photo copier for select chapters you need. I would think the $300+ it costs could be better spent - until a new edition comes out (fwiw, crossing my fingers for videos with ed4 of McG's).

Pocket Podiatrics is "aight" if you ask me. I sometimes tell students that it's your 2nd/3rd year intro book with some ok info for NBPME board, but PI manual is for 3rd year, clerkships, and beyond. There are definitely some typos in Pocket Podiatrics, and I would urge you to never cite it if an attending or resident asks, "where did you read/learn that."

Good job on asking for advice on reading materials. There are tons of texts and millions of journal articles... you want to pick quality 👍

McGlamry-January 2011
Chang-Fall 2010
Do you have any proof of this? Your Chang date has passed, and I know of no Chang 2nd edition?
 
Last edited:
Whoops that should be-

Chang Fall 2011
McGlamry January 2012

One of our class officers has been in contact with the publisher and this is what she was told.
 
those dates have been pushed back multiple times, i wouldnt trust them.
 
Thanks for the info. I just hate to spend the money on texts when a new edition is due out so soon. I think I'll try to use the library's copies for now. I happened to find a used copy of the PI manual online yesterday for a great price, so I went with that.

Feli - Thanks for the advice. I just wanted to have a text to reference for class and as a basis to go off of for now. I'm starting to go to a lot of the scientific conferences and read journal articles since these books are probably out of date on some things as soon as they are printed!
 
... I'm starting to go to a lot of the scientific conferences and read journal articles since these books are probably out of date on some things as soon as they are printed!
You are right, and you always want to be as up to date as possible. Surgical procedure selection evolves fairly slowly, and that's because anatomy doesn't change (and that's why Chang is a great value for quality color pictures). However, you will see that fixation, pharm, implants, biologics, and orthobiologics evolve more rapidly (since industry money fuels their research/marketing). When I read McGlamry's, the most outdated chapters are the ones on mpj1 implants, screw types, etc... basically historical interest only (many implants they describe are no longer marketed or served as "prototypes" for today's toys).

However, there's also a classic saying, "you don't want to be the first guy, or the last guy, to be doing something." You don't want to fall behind the standards of care, but you shouldn't be such an eager pioneer that you let your ego drive your patient care decisions toward unproven BS. Text books do lag behind the literature, which lags behind the conferences. However, it's said it takes about 10yrs for BAD literature (faulty study design, stats, conclusion logic, etc) to be disproven and pushed out of the standard of care. Hot topics d'jour: will that disproving and abandonment happen with ankle implants? Primary arthrodesis for lisfranc fx? I don't know... but I would bet on "yes" and "no" respectively.

As I said, question everything. You know the anat and path, so the literature, in a nutshell, is simply your guide to being aware of the treatment options for your patients. Textbooks do have the advantage that they (the popular ones anways) tend to stay far enough behind the cutting edge that they don't get sliced open. Let's just say that the first flowers to eagerly sprout a couple of weeks ago in my back yard here in Detroit got hit with a frosty 25deg morning death a week later. 😉

....The main thing is just that you are finding quality stuff to read. That could be the original Paul Lapidus article from about 80yrs ago, Yu from 20yrs ago, Sig Hansen from 10yrs ago, or a Chris Hyer study from the ACFAS conference last week which isn't even in a printed journal yet. The bottom line is to read all of them with a grain of salt. You are doing the right thing by asking for suggestions... always ask what to read, where (which journals), etc. You will eventually develop a strong preference and opinions of your own, but "classic" articles and texts are popular journals are that way for a reason. 👍
 
"you don't want to be the first guy, or the last guy, to be doing something." You don't want to fall behind the standards of care, but you shouldn't be such an eager pioneer that you let your ego drive your patient care decisions toward unproven BS.

I got into an interesting discussion with a colleague about this at a recent conference. How does anything evolve if no one is willing to be the "first guy"? Also, some of the tried and true procedures/fixations are still being utilized even though some may think they are archaic. How quickly does evolution occur and who is to say who "the last guy" is? Who sets "the standard of care", if not us, and what if you are ahead of it, rather than behind it?

Pioneering may or may not have anything to do with ego. It sometimes has to do with the drive to forge ahead. The biggest strides are rarely made when "ego" is the motivator.
 
I got into an interesting discussion with a colleague about this at a recent conference. How does anything evolve if no one is willing to be the "first guy"? Also, some of the tried and true procedures/fixations are still being utilized even though some may think they are archaic. How quickly does evolution occur and who is to say who "the last guy" is? Who sets "the standard of care", if not us, and what if you are ahead of it, rather than behind it?

Pioneering may or may not have anything to do with ego. It sometimes has to do with the drive to forge ahead. The biggest strides are rarely made when "ego" is the motivator.

I have to laugh about the theory of advancement particularly in foot and ankle surgery. New expensive fixation devices and orthobiologics do not necessarily translate in to advanced care. Often not proven scientifically but even if proven often misused or overutilized. IMO things seem to be recycled and called new. One example is the tightrope for HAV surgery (rarely indicated IMO). Hundreds of years ago a Lepenhager sp? stitch was used to pull the first and second metatarsal heads together then in the 80s it was the adductor tendon transfer to pull them together and now the tight rope. Opening wedge osteotomies healed in the past but oftened caused first MPJ jamming and went out of favor; now cool new plate and they are back. Now to be fair the Lapidus lost favor because of poor fixation options and now are used commonly. So recycling is not necessarily a bad thing. Ex-fix use has dropped off, as I suspect other "new" ideas will. I have been in the situation of being the first in my region to do something which only means I sometimes am the first to see it not live up to the hype and the first to stop.

Science is the key, good studies, and common sense. If not we will see more "master surgeons" courses that have people doing prophylactic arthroeresis and other un-necessary procedures so that the newest false prophet can profit (no pun).
 
http://www.podiatrytoday.com/blogge...t-technologic-imperative-podiatry-conferences

There are some advances that I find useful, though. I was trained to use a Synthes screw with Orthosorb pin fixation for bunion fixation and never liked that combo. I saw too many issues with the orthosprb pin and always questioned that "two points of fixation" theory. I now use one high compression titanium screw and am very pleased with the results. I also continue to use ex-fix (mini rails) a good bit and also am trying a new type of intramedullary fixation for midfoot charcot recons and also for Lapidus procedures that shows promise.

As you mentioned Podfather, it's a matter of thoroughly evaluating the new techniques and new products to really see if there are really all glam, or have a true use for advancement.
 
I got into an interesting discussion with a colleague about this at a recent conference. How does anything evolve if no one is willing to be the "first guy"? Also, some of the tried and true procedures/fixations are still being utilized even though some may think they are archaic. How quickly does evolution occur and who is to say who "the last guy" is? Who sets "the standard of care", if not us, and what if you are ahead of it, rather than behind it?

Pioneering may or may not have anything to do with ego. It sometimes has to do with the drive to forge ahead. The biggest strides are rarely made when "ego" is the motivator.
You're absolutely right! "Pioneering" doesn't always have to do with ego... these days, it probably has even more to do with money. Do you really think the guys (mostly ortho F&A) doing total ankles believe in them? Do you also think they're possibly being paid a BOAT load as an "expert consultant" by the industry companies jockeying to establish their company's implant as the new standard of care for end stage ankle arthritis? I'd be awfully interested as to what those consultant surgeons would really do if their 60yo dad/brother/etc had end stage ankle arthritis: implant or scope desis. Hmmm?

How about PRP? Topaz? Lock plates? Biologics? Etc? Same principles IMO: industry $, industry-fueled research and lectures by consultants... then reps appeal to egos of everyday F&A surgeons to get them to over-utilize unecessary - or sometimes even ineffective - products. Don't get me wrong, I believe in anything when indicated, but it gets pretty rediculous when you see guys routinely throwing on lock plates for minimally displaced SER2s, putting in orthobiologics or bone stims for osteotomies in young healthy pts, using frames when internal fixation would easily suffice and has no contra, etc.

Sure, there are things like VAC, cannulated screws, etc which are bona fide breakthroughs in our field (usually other fields first, though). Those will make it into your everyday clinical practice eventually, but I'm happy to let the conscientious PhDs in some ivory tower do bench studies, then cadaver studies, then trial/error animal studies, then short term outcomes, then long term, then RCT, etc. I'll then continue to wait while other busy clinical practitioners publish their case series on the treatment/technology. People aren't trial & error, and we should aim to let $ have minimal influence on our clinical decisions. At the end of the day, it's our skills and training that help the patients... not some fixation device, or hocus pocus. Like I said, I'm perfectly fine staying far enough behind the cutting edge that I don't get my dignity (and my license?) sliced off. JMO