Aims

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the highest level of evidence used to inform patient care. However, it has been suggested that the quality of randomization in RCTs in orthopaedic surgery may be low. This study aims to describe the quality of randomization in trials included in systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.

The statistical quality of 103 original articles published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British Volume) in 1984 was assessed. Some papers were found to be deficient: thus, it was not always clear how series were selected and sometimes neither the data nor the results were clearly presented. Sample sizes were frequently inadequate for the conclusions reached and statistical techniques should have been used more frequently. A majority of papers were descriptions of case series for which no comparative data were made available. It is suggested that collaborative research would best advance knowledge about the relative benefits of various managements, and that statistical advice could make a substantial contribution

Duplicate publication in orthopaedic journals may further an author’s academic career but this is at the cost of both scientific integrity and knowledge. Multiple publications of the same work increase the workload of editorial boards, misguide the reader and affect the process of meta-analysis. We found that of 343 ‘original’ articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in 1999, 26 (7.6%) had some degree of redundancy. The prevalence of duplicate publications in the orthopaedic literature appears to be less than that in other surgical specialties but it is still a matter of concern. It is the author’s responsibility to notify the editor of any duality when submitting a paper for publication

Osteomyelitis is one of the oldest diseases known. It took many years before the acute infection could be brought under control with antibiotics and chronic osteomyelitis remains difficult to manage. The modern history of the disease is reflected in the pages of the

Over a 13-year period we studied all patients who underwent major hip and knee surgery and were diagnosed with objectively confirmed symptomatic venous thromboembolism, either deep venous thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism, within six months after surgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin had been given while the patients were in hospital.

There were 5607 patients. The cumulative incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism was 2.7% (150 of 5607), of which 1.1% had developed pulmonary embolism, 1.5% had deep venous thrombosis and 0.6% had both. Patients presented with deep venous thrombosis at a median of 24 days and pulmonary embolism at 17 days after surgery for hip fracture. After total hip replacement, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism occurred at a median of 21 and 34 days respectively. After total knee replacement, the median time to the presentation of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism was 20 and 12 days respectively. The cumulative risk of venous thromboembolism lasted for up to three months after hip surgery and for one month after total knee replacement. Venous thromboembolism was diagnosed after discharge from hospital in 70% of patients who developed this complication.

Despite hospital-based thromboprophylaxis, most cases of clinical venous thromboembolism occur after discharge and at different times according to the operation performed.

Aims

We have previously reported cryoablation-assisted joint-sparing surgery for osteosarcoma with epiphyseal involvement. However, it is not clear whether this is a comparable alternative to conventional joint arthroplasty in terms of oncological and functional outcomes.