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:
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.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis
of modern total ankle replacements (TARs) to determine the survivorship,
outcome, complications, radiological findings and range of movement,
in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) of the ankle who
undergo this procedure. We used the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration,
which uses risk of bias profiling to assess the quality of papers
in favour of a domain-based approach. Continuous outcome scores
were pooled across studies using the generic inverse variance method
and the random-effects model was used to incorporate clinical and
methodological heterogeneity. We included 58 papers (7942 TARs)
with an interobserver reliability (Kappa) for selection, performance,
attrition, detection and reporting bias of between 0.83 and 0.98.
The overall survivorship was 89% at ten years with an annual failure
rate of 1.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7 to 1.6). The mean
American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score changed from 40 (95%
CI 36 to 43) pre-operatively to 80 (95% CI 76 to 84) at a mean follow-up
of 8.2 years (7 to 10) (p <
0.01). Radiolucencies were identified
in up to 23% of TARs after a mean of 4.4 years (2.3 to 9.6). The
mean total range of movement improved from 23° (95% CI 19 to 26)
to 34° (95% CI 26 to 41) (p = 0.01). Our study demonstrates that TAR has a positive impact on patients’
lives, with benefits lasting ten years, as judged by improvement
in pain and function, as well as improved gait and increased range
of movement. However, the quality of evidence is weak and fraught
with biases and high quality randomised controlled trials are required
to compare TAR with other forms of treatment such as fusion. Cite this article:
The outcome of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) deteriorates
with time, and additional procedures may be required. The aim of
this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes
between unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and total knee replacement
(TKR) after HTO as well as after primary UKR. A total of 63 patients (63
knees) were studied retrospectively and divided into three groups:
UKR after HTO (group A; n = 22), TKR after HTO (group B; n = 18)
and primary UKR (group C; n = 22). The Oxford knee score (OKS),
Knee Society score (KSS), hip–knee–ankle angles, mechanical axis
and patellar height were evaluated pre- and post-operatively. At
a mean of 64 months (19 to 180) post-operatively the mean OKS was
43.8 (33 to 49), 43.3 (30 to 48) and 42.5 (29 to 48) for groups
A, B and C, respectively (p = 0.73). The mean KSS knee score was
88.8 (54 to 100), 88.11 (51 to 100) and 85.3 (45 to 100) for groups
A, B and C, respectively (p = 0.65), and the mean KSS function score
was 85.0 (50 to 100) in group A, 85.8 (20 to 100) in group B and
79.3 (50 to 100) in group C (p = 0.48). Radiologically the results
were comparable for all groups except for patellar height, with
a higher incidence of patella infra following a previous HTO (p
= 0.02). Cite this article:
The December 2013 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Conflict of interest and hyaluronic acid; Will time indeed tell in microfracture?; Contralateral knee pain and joint replacement outcomes; Patient satisfaction and knee replacement?; Hope in the cytokines for painful TKRs?; Pain severity, cytokines and osteoarthritis?; Quadriceps weakness and pain; and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee
Patient safety is a critical issue in elective
total joint replacement surgery. Identifying risk factors that might
predict complications and intensive care unit (ICU) admission proves instrumental
in reducing morbidity and mortality. The institution’s experience
with risk stratification and pre-operative ICU triage has resulted
in a reduction in unplanned ICU admissions and post-operative complications
after total hip replacement. The application of the prediction tools
to total knee replacement has proven less robust so far. This work
also reviews areas for future research in patient safety and cost
containment. Cite this article:
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.
Using inaccurate quotations can propagate misleading
information, which might affect the management of patients. The
aim of this study was to determine the predictors of quotation inaccuracy
in the peer-reviewed orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid.
We randomly selected 100 papers from ten orthopaedic journals. All references
were retrieved in full text when available or otherwise excluded.
Two observers independently rated all quotations from the selected
papers by comparing the claims made by the authors with the data
and expressed opinions of the reference source. A statistical analysis
determined which article-related factors were predictors of quotation
inaccuracy. The mean total inaccuracy rate of the 3840 verified
quotes was 7.6%. There was no correlation between the rate of inaccuracy
and the impact factor of the journal. Multivariable analysis identified
the journal and the type of study (clinical, biomechanical, methodological,
case report or review) as important predictors of the total quotation
inaccuracy rate. We concluded that inaccurate quotations in the peer-reviewed
orthopaedic literature related to the scaphoid were common and slightly
more so for certain journals and certain study types. Authors, reviewers
and editorial staff play an important role in reducing this inaccuracy.
We summarise and highlight the safety concerns
within the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery with particular
emphasis placed on current controversies and reforms within the United
Kingdom National Health Service.
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a chronic disease of childhood; it causes joint damage which may require surgical intervention, often in the young adult. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term outcome and survival of hip replacement in a group of adult patients with JIA and to determine predictors of survival for the prosthesis. In this retrospective comparative study patients were identified from the database of a regional specialist adult JIA clinic. This documented a series of 47 hip replacements performed in 25 adult patients with JIA. Surgery was performed at a mean age of 27 years (11 to 47), with a mean follow-up of 19 years (2 to 36). The mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire (WOMAC) score at the last follow-up was 53 (19 to 96) and the mean Health Assessment Questionnaire score was 2.25 (0 to 3). The mean pain component of the WOMAC score (60 (20 to 100)) was significantly higher than the mean functional component score (46 (0 to 97)) (p = 0.02). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a survival probability of 46.6% (95% confidence interval 37.5 to 55.7) at 19 years, with a trend towards enhanced survival with the use of a cemented acetabular component and a cementless femoral component. This was not, however, statistically significant (acetabular component, p = 0.76, femoral component, p = 0.45). Cox’s proportional hazards regression analysis showed an implant survival rate of 54.9% at 19 years at the mean of covariates. Survival of the prosthesis was significantly poorer (p = 0.001) in patients who had been taking long-term corticosteroids and significantly better (p = 0.02) in patients on methotrexate.
