I truly enjoyed this book. It is one of the very few sound historical (as opposed to sociological) studies of post-Second World War medicine that we have. Schlich has brought together all that should be admirable in a good work of history: new material, a fascinating narrative and an informed historiographical approach. During the twentieth century, traumatology was created as a medical speciality as fractures were perceived (by way of insurance companies) as a distinct category of accidents. For the most part, broken bones were treated conservatively. That is, if the skin was intact, a wounded limb was manipulated and immobilized in plaster of Paris for weeks. A broken femur had the patient in bed and in traction for what must have seemed, to the sufferer, for ever. The huge disadvantages of this regime, setting aside the economics, were wasting of the limb and all the possible dangers, notably deep vein thrombosis, of being supine for a long period. A few brave, or foolhardy, surgeons, such as Arbuthnot Lane, practised open reduction. They operated, exposed the bone and used plates, screws and nails to achieve union. In the hands of the skilful great success was achieved but when less adept practitioners copied these techniques the failure, usually meaning wound infection, was there for all to see. The point here is that pre-war fracture management was analogous to the workshop model of industry. Surgeons had their individual approaches, each turning out his (almost invariably a man) own product using his own methods. Schlich's study is a history of Fordism in surgery, the creation of a standard model with interchangeable parts in use everywhere. In November 1958, thirteen relatively young surgeons in Switzerland met in Bienne and founded an association to promote the systematic treatment of fractures. The group was called AO, shorthand for its full title Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthesefragen—the Association for the Study of Osteosynthesis. Osteosynthesis treatment was based on open (operative) reduction and aimed at restoring the original anatomical shape of the bone by using implants, almost immediate post-operative exercise and healing without callus, the lumpy bony scar regarded as essential in conservative treatment. Schlich's story is a classic account of how an innovation can be made to travel if control is kept at the centre. Standardization was the key to the Swiss surgeons' success in promoting a method of fracture management that was ultimately to become universal. Schlich's tale is about how the surgeons had uniform instruments and implants made for them, and how they exercised control over where in the world their devices went. It is a story about how they wrote textbooks, organized courses, arranged fellowships and taught their tacit surgical skills to others. It is also a story of resistance, notably in America, and of loss of control with, at times, the failure of osteosynthesis and the inevitable criticism of it. One of the most fascinating narratives in this book is how AO founded a laboratory that came up with a new theory of bone healing that was accepted into the biological mainstream. The new theory, incidentally, also legitimated the osteosynthetic approach. It is hard to do justice to this book in a summary. It is about centre and periphery, control and anarchy, individual and collective knowledge, standardization and inventiveness, workshops and industry, continuity and change. It is a splendid book and a must for historians whatever subject or era they work in.