Not all questions can be answered by prospective randomised controlled trials. Registries were introduced as a way of collecting information on joint replacements at a population level. They have helped to identify failing implants and the data have also been used to monitor the performance of individual surgeons. This review aims to look at some of the less well known registries that are currently being used worldwide, including those kept on knee ligaments, ankle arthroplasty, fractures and trauma.
This article provides an overview of the role of genomics in sarcomas and describes how new methods of analysis and comparative screening have provided the potential to progress understanding and treatment of sarcoma. This article reviews genomic techniques, the evolution of the use of genomics in cancer, the current state of genomic analysis, and also provides an overview of the medical, social and economic implications of recent genomic advances.
There are significant differences in the methods and styles of orthopaedic surgical training between continents, all with the aim to produce competent consultant surgeons, but the differences in training content and pathway are vast. We review and contrast the key differences between three continents.
The “Universal Protocol” (UP) was launched as a regulatory compliance standard by the Joint Commission on 1st July 1 2004, with the primary intent of reducing the occurrence of wrong-site and wrong-patient surgery. As we’re heading into the tenth year of the UP implementation in the United States, it is time for critical assessment of the protocol’s impact on patient safety related to the incidence of preventable never-events. This article opens the debate on the potential shortcomings and pitfalls of the UP, and provides recommendations on how to circumvent specific inherent vulnerabilities of this widely established patient safety protocol.
According to a report by Millennium Research Group in January 2011, the US orthopaedic extremity device market will generate over $4.6 billion in revenue by 2015.
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.
