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.

Objectives

Osteoporosis has become an increasing concern for older people as it may potentially lead to osteoporotic fractures. This study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ten therapies for post-menopausal women using network meta-analysis.

We compared the bulking and tensile strength of the Pennington modified Kessler, Cruciate and the Savage repairs in an ex vivo model. A total of 60 porcine tendons were randomised to three groups, half repaired using a core suture alone and the remainder employing a core and peripheral technique. The tendons were distracted to failure. The force required to produce a 3 mm gap, the ultimate strength, the mode of failure and bulking for each repair were assessed. We found that there was a significant increase in strength without an increase in bulk as the number of strands increased. The Cruciate repair was significantly more likely to fail by suture pullout than the Pennington modified Kessler or Savage repairs. We advise the use of the Savage repair, especially in the thumb, and a Cruciate when a Savage is not possible. The Pennington modified Kessler repair should be reserved for multiple tendon injuries.