Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 6 | Pages 738 - 746
1 Jun 2013
Palmer AJR Brown CP McNally EG Price AJ Tracey I Jezzard P Carr AJ Glyn-Jones S

Treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) has traditionally focused on joint replacement for end-stage disease. An increasing number of surgical and pharmaceutical strategies for disease prevention have now been proposed. However, these require the ability to identify OA at a stage when it is potentially reversible, and detect small changes in cartilage structure and function to enable treatment efficacy to be evaluated within an acceptable timeframe. This has not been possible using conventional imaging techniques but recent advances in musculoskeletal imaging have been significant. In this review we discuss the role of different imaging modalities in the diagnosis of the earliest changes of OA. The increasing number of MRI sequences that are able to non-invasively detect biochemical changes in cartilage that precede structural damage may offer a great advance in the diagnosis and treatment of this debilitating condition.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:738–46.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 92-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1294 - 1299
1 Sep 2010
Ashby E Haddad FS O’Donnell E Wilson APR

As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection.

If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.