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.

Wrong-level surgery is a unique pitfall in spinal surgery and is part of the wider field of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site surgery affects both patients and surgeons and has received much media attention. We performed this systematic review to determine the incidence and prevalence of wrong-level procedures in spinal surgery and to identify effective prevention strategies. We retrieved 12 studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of wrong-site surgery and that provided information about prevention strategies. Of these, ten studies were performed on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and two on patients undergoing lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine procedures. A higher frequency of wrong-level surgery in lumbar procedures than in cervical procedures was found. Only one study assessed preventative strategies for wrong-site surgery, demonstrating that current site-verification protocols did not prevent about one-third of the cases. The current literature does not provide a definitive estimate of the occurrence of wrong-site spinal surgery, and there is no published evidence to support the effectiveness of site-verification protocols. Further prevention strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of wrong-site surgery.

The April 2012 Wrist & Hand Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at releasing the trigger finger, function in the osteoarthritic hand, complex regional pain syndrome, arthroscopic ligamentoplasty for the injured scapholunate ligament, self-concept and upper limb deformities in children, wrist arthroscopy in children, internal or external fixation for the fractured distal radius, nerve grafting, splinting the PIPJ contracture, and finding the stalk of a dorsal wrist ganglion

The anatomical studies, basic to our understanding of lumbar spine innervation through the sinu-vertebral nerves, are reviewed. Research in the 1980s suggested that pain sensation was conducted in part via the sympathetic system. These sensory pathways have now been clarified using sophisticated experimental and histochemical techniques confirming a dual pattern. One route enters the adjacent dorsal root segmentally, whereas the other supply is non-segmental ascending through the paravertebral sympathetic chain with re-entry through the thoracolumbar white rami communicantes.

Sensory nerve endings in the degenerative lumbar disc penetrate deep into the disrupted nucleus pulposus, insensitive in the normal lumbar spine. Complex as well as free nerve endings would appear to contribute to pain transmission.

The nature and mechanism of discogenic pain is still speculative but there is growing evidence to support a ‘visceral pain’ hypothesis, unique in the muscloskeletal system. This mechanism is open to ‘peripheral sensitisation’ and possibly ‘central sensitisation’ as a potential cause of chronic back pain.

Concerns have been reported to the United Kingdom National Patient Safety Agency, warning that cementing the femoral component during hip replacement surgery for fracture of the proximal femur may increase peri-operative mortality.

The National Hip Fracture Database collects demographic and outcome data about patients with a fracture of the proximal femur from over 100 participating hospitals in the United Kingdom. We conducted a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of this dataset to determine whether peri-operative mortality was increased in patients who had undergone either hemiarthroplasty or total hip replacement using a cemented femoral component. A total of 16 496 patients from 129 hospitals were included in the analysis, which showed a small but significant adjusted survival benefit associated with cementing (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.96). Other statistically significant variables in predicting death at discharge, listed in order of magnitude of effect, were gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, age, walking accompanied outdoors and arthroplasty. Interaction terms between cementing and these other variables were sequentially added to, but did not improve, the model.

This study has not shown an increase in peri-operative mortality as a result of cementing the femoral component in patients requiring hip replacement following fracture of the proximal femur.

Recent publication of reports showing high revision rates for hip and knee replacements carried out in Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) has raised doubts regarding their ability to provide high quality healthcare. The high revision rates also create a financial burden to the NHS. The poor quality of data collected at ISTCs makes their performance difficult to evaluate. Funds may be better spent improving existing NHS facilities rather than establishing parallel ISTCs.