Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 10 of 10
Results per page:
Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 2 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Apr 2018
Das A Giddie J Ollivere B


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 3 | Pages 2 - 6
1 Jun 2017
Das A Shivji F Ollivere BJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 2 | Pages 2 - 6
1 Apr 2017
Singh A Collins R Wimhurst J


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 2 - 8
1 Jun 2014
Phillips JRA Waterson HB Searle DJ Mandalia VI Toms AD

This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 2 | Pages 2 - 6
1 Apr 2015
Lever CJ Robinson AHN

Ankle replacements have improved significantly since the first reported attempt at resurfacing of the talar dome in 1962. We are now at a stage where ankle replacement offers a viable option in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. As the procedure becomes more successful, it is important to reflect and review the current surgical outcomes. This allows us to guide our patients in the treatment of end-stage ankle arthritis. What is the better surgical treatment – arthrodesis or replacement?


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 1 | Pages 2 - 5
1 Feb 2015
Wright GM Porteous MJ


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 5 | Pages 8 - 12
1 Oct 2013
Phillips JRA

Not all questions can be answered by prospective randomised controlled trials. Registries were introduced as a way of collecting information on joint replacements at a population level. They have helped to identify failing implants and the data have also been used to monitor the performance of individual surgeons. This review aims to look at some of the less well known registries that are currently being used worldwide, including those kept on knee ligaments, ankle arthroplasty, fractures and trauma.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 1 | Pages 7 - 10
1 Feb 2014
Stahel PF

The “Universal Protocol” (UP) was launched as a regulatory compliance standard by the Joint Commission on 1st July 1 2004, with the primary intent of reducing the occurrence of wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery. As we’re heading into the tenth year of the UP implementation in the United States, it is time for critical assessment of the protocol’s impact on patient safety related to the incidence of preventable never-events. This article opens the debate on the potential shortcomings and pitfalls of the UP, and provides recommendations on how to circumvent specific inherent vulnerabilities of this widely established patient safety protocol.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 6 | Pages 2 - 8
1 Dec 2013
Jones R Wood D

This article provides an overview of the role of genomics in sarcomas and describes how new methods of analysis and comparative screening have provided the potential to progress understanding and treatment of sarcoma. This article reviews genomic techniques, the evolution of the use of genomics in cancer, the current state of genomic analysis, and also provides an overview of the medical, social and economic implications of recent genomic advances.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 1, Issue 4 | Pages 5 - 7
1 Aug 2012
Rajasekaran S

In 2006, approximately 1.3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles were published, aided by a large rise in the number of available scientific journals from 16 000 in 2001 to 23 750 by 2006. Is this evidence of an explosion in scientific knowledge or just the accumulation of wasteful publications and junk science? Data show that only 45% of the articles published in the 4500 top scientific journals are cited within the first five years of publication, a figure that is dropping steadily. Only 42% receive more than one citation. For better or for worse, “Publish or Perish” appears here to stay as the number of published papers becomes the basis for selection to academic positions, for tenure and promotions, a criterion for the awarding of grants and also the source of funding for salaries. The high pressure to publish has, however, ushered in an era where scientists are increasingly conducting and publishing data from research performed with ‘questionable research practices’ or even committing outright fraud. The few cases which are reported will in fact be the tip of an iceberg and the scientific community needs to be vigilant against this corruption of science.