Objectives. Microindentation has the potential to measure the stiffness of an individual patient’s bone. Bone stiffness plays a crucial role in the press-fit stability of orthopaedic implants. Arming surgeons with accurate bone stiffness information may reduce surgical complications including periprosthetic fractures. The question addressed with this systematic review is whether microindentation can accurately measure cortical bone stiffness. Methods. A systematic review of all English language articles using a keyword search was undertaken using Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. Studies that only used nanoindentation, cancellous bone or animal tissue were excluded. Results. A total of 1094 abstracts were retrieved and 32 papers were included in the analysis, 20 of which used reference point indentation, and 12 of which used traditional depth-sensing indentation. There are several factors that must be considered when using microindentation, such as tip size, depth and method of analysis. Only two studies validated microindentation against traditional mechanical testing techniques. Both studies used reference point indentation (RPI), with one showing that RPI parameters correlate well with mechanical testing, but the other suggested that they do not. Conclusion. Microindentation has been used in various studies to assess bone stiffness, but only two studies with conflicting results compared microindentation with traditional mechanical testing techniques. Further research, including more studies comparing microindentation with other mechanical testing methods, is needed before microindentation can be used reliably to calculate cortical bone stiffness. Cite this article: M. Arnold, S. Zhao, S. Ma, F. Giuliani, U. Hansen, J. P. Cobb, R. L. Abel, O. Boughton. Microindentation – a tool for measuring cortical bone stiffness? A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:542–549. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.69.BJR-2016-0317.R2

Objectives. Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Methods. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (. www.retractionwatch.com. ). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Results. One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19). Conclusion. The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators. Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047

Objectives. We aimed first to summarise minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) after total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Secondly, we aimed to improve the precision of MCID estimates by means of meta-analysis. Methods. We conducted a systematic review of English and non-English articles using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960–2011), EMBASE (1991–2011), Web of Science, Academic Search Premier and Science Direct. Bibliographies of included studies were searched in order to find additional studies. Search terms included MCID or minimal clinically important change, THR or TKR and Short-Form 36. We included longitudinal studies that estimated MCID of SF-36 after THR or TKR. Results. Three studies met our inclusion criteria, describing a distinct study population: primary THR, primary TKR and revision THR. No synthesis of study results can be given. Conclusions. Although we found MCIDs in HRQoL after THR or TKR have limited precision and are not validated using external criteria, these are still the best known estimates of MCIDs in HRQoL after THR and TKR to date. We therefore advise these MCIDs to be used as absolute thresholds, but with caution

Objectives

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) and osteoarthritis (OA) are relatively frequent causes of disability amongst the elderly; they constitute serious socioeconomic costs and significantly impair quality of life. Previous studies to date have found that aggrecan variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR) contributes both to DDD and OA. However, current data are not consistent across studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate systematically the relationship between aggrecan VNTR, and DDD and/or OA.

Objectives

To review the systemic impact of smoking on bone healing as evidenced within the orthopaedic literature.

The treatment of osteochondral lesions and osteoarthritis remains an ongoing clinical challenge in orthopaedics. This review examines the current research in the fields of cartilage regeneration, osteochondral defect treatment, and biological joint resurfacing, and reports on the results of clinical and pre-clinical studies. We also report on novel treatment strategies and discuss their potential promise or pitfalls. Current focus involves the use of a scaffold providing mechanical support with the addition of chondrocytes or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), or the use of cell homing to differentiate the organism’s own endogenous cell sources into cartilage. This method is usually performed with scaffolds that have been coated with a chemotactic agent or with structures that support the sustained release of growth factors or other chondroinductive agents. We also discuss unique methods and designs for cell homing and scaffold production, and improvements in biological joint resurfacing. There have been a number of exciting new studies and techniques developed that aim to repair or restore osteochondral lesions and to treat larger defects or the entire articular surface. The concept of a biological total joint replacement appears to have much potential.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:193–9.