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?

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

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

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.

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.