English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Non-allopathic treatment methods still play a substantial role in management of orthopaedic injuries in Sri Lanka despite the provision of free allopathic health care in state sector. Traditional healing (‘deshiya chikithsa’/‘Sinhala wedakama’) has been practiced for centuries, well before the establishment of allopathic system [1]. These physicians are highly patronised on cultural background, thus treatment failures/complications may not be appreciated. As some of the traditional treatment methods contradict the lopathic management (AM) principles, a certain amount of mutual antagonism and distrust has been developed, which delays referrals from traditional bone healers (TBH) or patient return to AM after complications/failures of traditional treatment. The objective of this study was to analyze the functional outcome after delayed AM in a series of patients treated initially by TBH for orthopaedic injuries.

Outcome of delayed allopathic management of orthopaedic injuries initially treated by traditional bone healers