Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 13 of 13
Results per page:
Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 13, Issue 5 | Pages 8 - 17
1 Oct 2024
Holley J Lawniczak D Machin JT Briggs TWR Hunter J


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 3 | Pages 9 - 11
1 Jun 2022
Foxall-Smith M


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 4 | Pages 5 - 11
1 Aug 2021
Kurien T Scammell BE


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 2 | Pages 5 - 16
1 Apr 2021
Coco V Shivji F Thompson P Grassi A Zaffagnini S Spalding T


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 5 | Pages 4 - 9
1 Oct 2020
Matthews E Waterson HB Phillips JR Toms AD


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 6 | Pages 2 - 8
1 Dec 2018
Murray IR Safran MR LaPrade RF


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 4 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Aug 2017
Titchener AG Tambe AA Clark DI


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


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 4, Issue 4 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Aug 2015
Nicol S Jackson M Monsell F

This review explores recent advances in fixator design and used in contemporary orthopaedic practice including the management of bone loss, complex deformity and severe isolated limb injury.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 3, Issue 3 | Pages 9 - 13
1 Jun 2014
Waterson HB Philips JRA Mandalia VI Toms AD

Mechanical alignment has been a fundamental tenet of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) since modern knee replacement surgery was developed in the 1970s. The objective of mechanical alignment was to infer the greatest biomechanical advantage to the implant to prevent early loosening and failure. Over the last 40 years a great deal of innovation in TKA technology has been focusing on how to more accurately achieve mechanical alignment. Recently the concept of mechanical alignment has been challenged, and other alignment philosophies are being explored with the intention of trying to improve patient outcomes following TKA.

This article examines the evolution of the mechanical alignment concept and whether there are any viable alternatives.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 5 | Pages 2 - 7
1 Oct 2013
Penn-Barwell JG Rowlands TK

Blast and ballistic weapons used on the battlefield cause devastating injuries rarely seen outside armed conflict. These extremely high-energy injuries predominantly affect the limbs and are usually heavily contaminated with soil, foliage, clothing and even tissue from other casualties. Once life-threatening haemorrhage has been addressed, the military surgeon’s priority is to control infection.

Combining historical knowledge from previous conflicts with more recent experience has resulted in a systematic approach to these injuries. Urgent debridement of necrotic and severely contaminated tissue, irrigation and local and systemic antibiotics are the basis of management. These principles have resulted in successful healing of previously unsurvivable wounds. Healthy tissue must be retained for future reconstruction, vulnerable but viable tissue protected to allow survival and avascular tissue removed with all contamination.

While recent technological and scientific advances have offered some advantages, they must be judged in the context of a hard-won historical knowledge of these wounds. This approach is applicable to comparable civilian injury patterns. One of the few potential benefits of war is the associated improvement in our understanding of treating the severely injured; for this positive effect to be realised these experiences must be shared.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 3 | Pages 6 - 14
1 Jun 2013
Wallace WA

In the UK we have many surgeon inventors – surgeons who innovate and create new ways of doing things, who invent operations, who design new instruments to facilitate surgery or design new implants for using in patients. However truly successful surgeon inventors are a rare breed and they need to develop additional knowledge and skills during their career in order to push forward their devices and innovations. This article reviews my own experiences as a surgeon inventor and the highs and lows over the whole of my surgical career.


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.