This paper outlines the recent development of an exchange Travelling Fellowship scheme between the British and American Orthopaedic Research Societies

Objectives. Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Methods. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (. www.retractionwatch.com. ). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Results. One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19). Conclusion. The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators. Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047

Aims

The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up.

Trauma and orthopaedics is the largest of the surgical specialties and yet attracts a disproportionately small fraction of available national and international funding for health research. With the burden of musculoskeletal disease increasing, high-quality research is required to improve the evidence base for orthopaedic practice. Using the current research landscape in the United Kingdom as an example, but also addressing the international perspective, we highlight the issues surrounding poor levels of research funding in trauma and orthopaedics and indicate avenues for improving the impact and success of surgical musculoskeletal research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1578–85.

Artificial intelligence and machine-learning analytics have gained extensive popularity in recent years due to their clinically relevant applications. A wide range of proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the ability of these analyses to personalize risk prediction, detect implant specifics from imaging, and monitor and assess patient movement and recovery. Though these applications are exciting and could potentially influence practice, it is imperative to understand when these analyses are indicated and where the data are derived from, prior to investing resources and confidence into the results and conclusions. In this article, we review the current benefits and potential limitations of machine-learning for the orthopaedic surgeon with a specific emphasis on data quality.

Aims. Management of displaced paediatric supracondylar elbow fractures remains widely debated and actual practice is unclear. This national trainee collaboration aimed to evaluate surgical and postoperative management of these injuries across the UK. Methods. This study was led by the South West Orthopaedic Research Division (SWORD) and performed by the Supra Man Collaborative. Displaced paediatric supracondylar elbow fractures undergoing surgery between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 were retrospectively identified and their anonymized data were collected via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Results. A total of 972 patients were identified across 41 hospitals. Mean age at injury was 6.3 years (1 to 15), 504 were male (52%), 583 involved the left side (60%), and 538 were Gartland type 3 fractures (55%). Median time from injury to theatre was 16 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 6.6 to 22), 300 patients (31%) underwent surgery on the day of injury, and 91 (9%) underwent surgery between 10:00 pm and 8:00 am. Overall, 910 patients (94%) had Kirschner (K)-wire) fixation and these were left percutaneous in 869 (95%), while 62 patients (6%) had manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) and casting. Crossed K-wire configuration was used as fixation in 544 cases (59.5%). Overall, 208 of the fixation cases (61%) performed or supervised by a paediatric orthopaedic consultant underwent lateral-only fixation, whereas 153 (27%) of the fixation cases performed or supervised by a non-paediatric orthopaedic consultant used lateral-only fixation. In total, 129 percutaneous wires (16%) were removed in theatre. Of the 341 percutaneous wire fixations performed or supervised by a paediatric orthopaedic consultant, 11 (3%) underwent wire removal in theatre, whereas 118 (22%) of the 528 percutaneous wire fixation cases performed or supervised by a non-paediatric orthopaedic consultant underwent wire removal in theatre. Four MUA patients (6%) and seven K-wire fixation patients (0.8%) required revision surgery within 30 days for displacement. Conclusion. The treatment of supracondylar elbow fractures in children varies across the UK. Patient cases where a paediatric orthopaedic consultant was involved had an increased tendency for lateral only K-wire fixation and for wire removal in clinic. Low rates of displacement requiring revision surgery were identified in all fixation configurations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):82–87