Aims

Lower limb fractures are common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and represent a significant burden to the existing orthopaedic surgical infrastructure. In high income country (HIC) settings, internal fixation is the standard of care due to its superior outcomes. In LMICs, external fixation is often the surgical treatment of choice due to limited supplies, cost considerations, and its perceived lower complication rate. The aim of this systematic review protocol is identifying differences in rates of infection, nonunion, and malunion of extra-articular femoral and tibial shaft fractures in LMICs treated with either internal or external fixation.

Aims

The evidence base within trauma and orthopaedics has traditionally favoured quantitative research methodologies. Qualitative research can provide unique insights which illuminate patient experiences and perceptions of care. Qualitative methods reveal the subjective narratives of patients that are not captured by quantitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to quantify the level of qualitative research within the orthopaedic literature.

Aims

To report the outcomes of patients with a fracture of the distal tibia who were treated with intramedullary nail versus locking plate in the five years after participating in the Fixation of Distal Tibia fracture (FixDT) trial.

The OpenAI chatbot ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence (AI) application that uses state-of-the-art language processing AI. It can perform a vast number of tasks, from writing poetry and explaining complex quantum mechanics, to translating language and writing research articles with a human-like understanding and legitimacy. Since its initial release to the public in November 2022, ChatGPT has garnered considerable attention due to its ability to mimic the patterns of human language, and it has attracted billion-dollar investments from Microsoft and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The scope of ChatGPT and other large language models appears infinite, but there are several important limitations. This editorial provides an introduction to the basic functionality of ChatGPT and other large language models, their current applications and limitations, and the associated implications for clinical practice and research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):587–589.

You have a great research question or an idea for an innovation that will change your field. You have worked tirelessly to develop the project and are excited with the outcome. Now it is time to disseminate your findings to the world. This talk will give some insight into how to maximise the impact of your writing to reach the largest possible audience. It will discuss what makes a great paper, and provide pointers for navigating the editorial process, from your initial interactions with the editor to handling the sometimes-difficult process of peer review.

Background. Patient-rated measures are the gold standard for assessing spine surgery outcomes, but there is no consensus on the appropriate timing of follow-up. Journals often demand a minimum 2-year follow-up, but the indiscriminate application of this principle may not be warranted. We examined the course of change in patient outcomes up to 5 years postoperatively. Methods. The data from 3′334 consecutive patients (1′789 women, 1′545 men; aged 61±15 years) undergoing first-time surgery between 1.1.2005 and 31.12.2010 for differing lumbar degenerative disorders were evaluated. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) was completed by 3′124 (94%) patients preoperatively, 3′164 (95%) at 3 months follow-up, 3′153 (95%) at 1 year, 3′112 (93%) at 2 years, and 2′897 (87%) at 5 years. 2′502 (75%) completed COMI at all five timepoints. Results. The COMI change-score from pre-op to 3 months follow-up correlated significantly with that from pre-op to 12 months (r=0.65;p<0.0001), 24 months (r=0.57;p<0.0001), and 5 years (r=0.51;p<0.0001). COMI decreased significantly from pre-op to 3 months (3.7-points), and from 3 months to 12 months (0.4-points), then levelled off up to 5 years (0.04–0.05 point-change). The course of change up to 12 months differed slightly depending on pathology/whether fusion was done. Conclusion. Stable COMI scores were seen from 1-year postoperatively onwards. As the early post-operative results appear to herald the long-term outcome, a ‘wait and see policy’ in patients with a poor initial outcome is not advocated. The insistence on a 2-year follow-up could result in a failure to intervene early to achieve better long-term outcomes. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

It's easy to say that hip resurfacing is a failed technology. Journals and lay press are replete with negative reports concerning metal-on-metal bearing failures, destructive pseudotumors, withdrawals and recalls. Reviews of national joint registries show revision risks with hip resurfacing exceeding those of traditional total hip replacement, and metal bearings fare worst among all bearing couples. Yet, that misses the point. Modern hip resurfacing was never meant to replace total hip replacement (THR). It was intended to preserve bone in young patients who would be expected to need multiple revisions due to their youth and high-demand activities. The stated goal of the developers of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was to delay THR by 10 years. In the two decades that followed the release of BHR, this goal has been met and exceeded. Much has been learned about indications, patient selection, and surgical technique. We now know that this highly specialised, challenging procedure is best indicated in the young, active male with osteoarthritis, as a complementary, not competitive procedure, to THR. Resurfacing has many advantages. First and foremost, it saves bone, on the day of surgery, and over the next several years by preventing stress shielding. Dislocations are very rare. Leg length discrepancy and changes in offset are avoided. Post-operative activity, including heavy manual labor and contact sports, is unrestricted. More normal loading of the femur and joint stability has allowed professional athletes to regain their careers. Femoral side revisions, if necessary, are simple total hips, and dual mobility constructs allow one to keep the socket. Adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), including pseudotumors, have generated great concern. Initially described only in women, it was unclear whether the etiology was allergy, toxicity, or inflammation. A better understanding of the wear properties of the bearing, and its relation to size, anteversion, hip dysplasia and metallurgy, along with retrieval analysis, allow us to conclude that it is excessive wear due to edge loading which is the fundamental mechanism for the vast majority of ARMD. Thus, patient selection, implant selection and surgical technique, the orthopaedic triad, are paramount. What has been most impressive are the truly exceptional results in young, active men. The worst candidates for THR turn out to be the best candidates for resurfacing. The ability to return to full, unrestricted activity is just as important to these patients as the spectacular survivorship in centers specializing in resurfacing. If they are unlucky and face a revision, they are not facing the life-changing outcomes of a long revision femoral stem. So if the best indication for hip resurfacing is the young, active male, let's look at the results of resurfacing these patients in centers with high volumes, using devices with a good track record, such as BHR. Several centers around the world report 10–18 year success rates of BHR in males under 50 at 98–100%. Return to athletics is routinely achieved, and even professional athletes have regained their careers. Hip resurfacing doesn't have to be better than THR to be popular among patients. Just the idea of saving all that bone makes it attractive. In the young active male, however, the results exceed those of THR, while leaving better revision options for the future. This justifies its continued use in this challenging patient population

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.

Continuing professional development (CPD) refers to the ongoing participation in activities that keep a doctor up to date and fit to practise once they have completed formal training. It is something that most will do naturally to serve their patients and to enable them to run a safe and profitable practice. Increasingly, regulators are formalising the requirements for evidence of CPD, often as part of a process of revalidation or relicensing.

This paper reviews how orthopaedic journals can be used as part of the process of continuing professional development.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:565–6.

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

We evaluated the top 13 journals in trauma and orthopaedics by impact factor and looked at the longer-term effect regarding citations of their papers.

All 4951 papers published in these journals during 2007 and 2008 were reviewed and categorised by their type, subspecialty and super-specialty. All citations indexed through Google Scholar were reviewed to establish the rate of citation per paper at two, four and five years post-publication. The top five journals published a total of 1986 papers. Only three (0.15%) were on operative orthopaedic surgery and none were on trauma. Most (n = 1084, 54.5%) were about experimental basic science. Surgical papers had a lower rate of citation (2.18) at two years than basic science or clinical medical papers (4.68). However, by four years the rates were similar (26.57 for surgery, 30.35 for basic science/medical), which suggests that there is a considerable time lag before clinical surgical research has an impact.

We conclude that high impact journals do not address clinical research in surgery and when they do, there is a delay before such papers are cited. We suggest that a rate of citation at five years post-publication might be a more appropriate indicator of importance for papers in our specialty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:414–19.

The peer review process for the evaluation of manuscripts for publication needs to be better understood by the orthopaedic community. Improving the degree of transparency surrounding the review process and educating orthopaedic surgeons on how to improve their manuscripts for submission will help improve both the review procedure and resultant feedback, with an increase in the quality of the subsequent publications. This article seeks to clarify the peer review process and suggest simple ways in which the quality of submissions can be improved to maximise publication success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:245–7.

The contents of 3 orthopaedic journals [JBJS (Am), JBJS (Br) and CORR] during 2001 and 2011 were compared for publication bias. There were total of 2028 articles. After exclusion 1662 scientific articles were analysed for statistical results, clinical conclusion, sub-speciality topics studied, the geographical region the study been conducted and the statistical method used. The articles classified into 7 categories: THR, TKR, Basic sciences, Trauma, Spinal disorders, Paediatric disorders and Tumour. 91% of articles on THR and 95% of articles on TKR were positive studies in 2001. Articles dealing with trauma had the lowest proportion of positive studies (74%) as compared to all other topics. We noted that JBJS (Br) published more negative studies as compared to JBJS (Am) and CORR. In 2011 less articles on THR and TKR had positive studies (68% and 76% respectively). Spinal surgery articles report less number of non significant studies nowadays (24% in 2001 and 2% in 2011). There is a significant change in the trend towards reporting more negative studies in relation with THR and TKR (p < 0.05). Articles dealing with Basic sciences, Trauma, Paediatric disorders and Tumour did not have any significant change in reporting negative studies in the last decade. Significant findings in spinal disorders were 3.8 times more likely to be published than non significant stdies. Overall, JBJS (Br) continued to publish more negative studies as compared to JBJS (Am) and CORR. Journals seem to prefer reporting more significant results with spinal disorders and more non significant results in relation with Hip and Knee arthroplasty in last ten years. This might be because of authors' perceptions of the importance of their findings and journals preferences for significant results

By and large, physicians and surgeons trust what they read, even if they take authors’ conclusions with a pinch of salt. There is a world of difference between being cautious about the implications of what you read and being defrauded by dishonest researchers. Fraud and scientific research are incompatible bedfellows and yet are an unhappy part of our research existence. All subspecialties are to blame and orthopaedics is no exception.

Purpose

In recent years, it has become increasingly common to publish the level of evidence of orthopaedic research in journal publications. Our primary research question is: is there an improvement in the levels of evidence of articles published in paediatric orthopaedic journals over time? In addition, what is the current status of levels of evidence in paediatric orthopaedic journals?