Objectives. Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods. A 29-question electronic survey was distributed to the readership of an established orthopaedic journal with international readership. The survey aimed to analyse the influence of both extrinsic (journal quality, investigator profiles, etc.) and intrinsic characteristics (study design, sample size, etc.) of research studies in relation to their influence on practice patterns. Results. A total of 353 surgeons completed the survey. Surgeons achieved consensus on the ‘importance’ of three key designs on their practices: randomised controlled trials (94%), meta-analyses (75%) and systematic reviews (66%). The vast majority of respondents support the use of current evidence over historical clinical training; however subjective factors such as journal reputation (72%) and investigator profile (68%) continue to influence clinical decision-making strongly. Conclusion. Although intrinsic factors such as study design and sample size have some influence on clinical decision-making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by extrinsic factors such as investigator reputation and perceived journal quality. Cite this article: Dr M. Ghert. An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to
Objectives. To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice. Methods. A questionnaire was piloted with six orthopaedic surgeons using a ‘think aloud’ process. The final questionnaire contained 29 items and was distributed online to surgeon members of the British Orthopaedic Association and British Elbow and Shoulder Society. Descriptive statistics summarised the sample characteristics and fracture treatment of respondents overall, and grouped them by whether they
Objectives. Our study aimed to examine not only the incidence but also the
impact of noise from two types of total hip replacement articulations:
ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene. . Methods . We performed a case-controlled study comparing subjective and
objective questionnaire scores of patients receiving a ceramic-on-ceramic
or a ceramic-on-polyethylene total hip replacement by a single surgeon. Results. There was a threefold higher incidence of noise from patients
in the ceramic-on-ceramic group compared with the control group.
The impact of this noise was significant for patients both subjectively
and objectively. Conclusions. This study reports a high patient impact of noise from ceramic-on-ceramic
total hip replacements. This has led to a
We have increased the dose of tranexamic acid (TXA) in our enhanced total joint recovery protocol at our institution from 15 mg/kg to 30 mg/kg (maximum 2.5 g) as a single, intravenous (IV) dose. We report the clinical effect of this dosage change. We retrospectively compared two cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery in our unit between 2008 and 2013. One group received IV TXA 15 mg/kg, maximum 1.2 g, and the other 30 mg/kg, maximum 2.5 g as a single pre-operative dose. The primary outcome for this study was the requirement for blood transfusion within 30 days of surgery. Secondary measures included length of hospital stay, critical care requirements, re-admission rate, medical complications and mortality rates.Objectives
Methods
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: