Treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) has traditionally
focused on joint replacement for end-stage disease. An increasing number
of surgical and pharmaceutical strategies for disease prevention
have now been proposed. However, these require the ability to identify
OA at a stage when it is potentially reversible, and detect small
changes in cartilage structure and function to enable treatment
efficacy to be evaluated within an acceptable timeframe. This has
not been possible using conventional imaging techniques but recent
advances in musculoskeletal imaging have been significant. In this
review we discuss the role of different imaging modalities in the
diagnosis of the earliest changes of OA. The increasing number of
MRI sequences that are able to non-invasively detect biochemical
changes in cartilage that precede structural damage may offer a
great advance in the diagnosis and treatment of this debilitating
condition. Cite this article:
Surgical marking during tendon surgery is often used for technical
and teaching purposes. This study investigates the effect of a gentian
violet ink marker pen, a common surgical marker, on the viability
of the tissue and cells of tendon.
Objectives
Methods
As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection. If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.
