Background

Approximately half of all hip fractures are displaced intracapsular fractures. The standard treatment for these fractures is either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. The recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on hip fracture management recommends the use of ‘proven’ cemented stem arthroplasty with an Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of at least 3B (97% survival at three years). The Thompsons prosthesis is currently lacking an ODEP rating despite over 50 years of clinical use, likely due to the paucity of implant survival data. Nationally, adherence to these guidelines is varied as there is debate as to which prosthesis optimises patient outcomes.

The August 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Antibiotic loaded ceramic of use in osteomyelitis; fibronectin implicated in cartilage degeneration; Zinc Chloride accelerates fracture healing in rats; advertisements and false claims; Net Promoter Score: substance or rhetoric?; aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and dissection, stress and the soul.

Objectives

Wear debris released from bearing surfaces has been shown to provoke negative immune responses in the recipient. Excessive wear has been linked to early failure of prostheses. Analysis using coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) can provide estimates of total volumetric material loss of explanted prostheses and can help to understand device failure. The accuracy of volumetric testing has been debated, with some investigators stating that only protocols involving hundreds of thousands of measurement points are sufficient. We looked to examine this assumption and to apply the findings to the clinical arena.

The February 2013 Wrist & Hand Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: to splint or not to splint; salvage of the unsalvageable; a close shave for malunions; a classic approach to malunion; diabetic carpal tunnel; capsulodesis; a wrist from a fibula; thumb-based osteoarthritis - a further opinion from the Editor-in-Chief.

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.

The poor reporting and use of statistical methods in orthopaedic papers has been widely discussed by both clinicians and statisticians. A detailed review of research published in general orthopaedic journals was undertaken to assess the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting. A representative sample of 100 papers was assessed for compliance to CONSORT and STROBE guidelines and the quality of the statistical reporting was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Overall compliance with CONSORT and STROBE guidelines in our study was 59% and 58% respectively, with very few papers fulfilling all criteria. In 37% of papers patient numbers were inadequately reported; 20% of papers introduced new statistical methods in the ‘results’ section not previously reported in the ‘methods’ section, and 23% of papers reported no measurement of error with the main outcome measure. Taken together, these issues indicate a general lack of statistical rigour and are consistent with similar reviews undertaken in a number of other scientific and clinical research disciplines. It is imperative that the orthopaedic research community strives to improve the quality of reporting; a failure to do so could seriously limit the development of future research.

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.

This systematic review of the literature summarises the clinical experience with ceramic-on-ceramic hip bearings over the past 40 years and discusses the concerns that exist in relation to the bearing combination. Loosening, fracture, liner chipping on insertion, liner canting and dissociation, edge-loading and squeaking have all been reported, and the relationship between these issues and implant design and surgical technique is investigated. New design concepts are introduced and analysed with respect to previous clinical experience.

In this meta-analysis we included 32 English-language articles published between January 1975 and June 2004 on the diagnostic performance of plain radiography, subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography and bone scintigraphy in detecting aseptic loosening of the femoral component, using criteria based on the Cochrane systematic review of screening and diagnostic tests.

The mean sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 76 to 87) and 81% (95% CI 73 to 87) for plain radiography and 85% (95% CI 75 to 91) and 83% (95% CI 75 to 89) for nuclear arthrography. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 86% (95% CI 74 to 93) and 85% (95% CI 77 to 91) for subtraction arthrography and 85% (95% CI 79 to 89) and 72% (95% CI 64 to 79) for bone scintigraphy. Although the diagnostic performance of the imaging techniques was not significantly different, plain radiography and bone scintigraphy are preferred for the assessment of a femoral component because of their efficacy and lower risk of patient morbidity.