Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 26 of 26
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1136 - 1337
1 Sep 2018
Griffin XL McBride D Nnadi C Reed MR Rossiter ND


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 2 | Pages 99 - 100
1 Feb 2023
Birch NC Tsirikos AI


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 13, Issue 1 | Pages 5 - 5
1 Feb 2024
Ollivere B


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1281 - 1283
1 Dec 2022
Azizpour K Birch NC Peul WC


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 8 | Pages 837 - 838
1 Aug 2023
Kelly M McNally SA Dhesi JK


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 3 | Pages 199 - 201
7 Mar 2023
Brzeszczyńska J Brzeszczyński F

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(3):199–201.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 10 | Pages 654 - 656
16 Oct 2023
Makaram NS Simpson AHRW

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):654–656.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 1 | Pages 5 - 8
1 Jan 2023
Im G

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(1):5–8.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 2 | Pages 189 - 192
1 Feb 2022
Scott CEH Clement ND Davis ET Haddad FS


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 12 | Pages 840 - 843
15 Dec 2021
Al-Hourani K Tsang SJ Simpson AHRW


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1328 - 1330
1 Aug 2021
Gwilym SE Perry DC Costa ML


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 3 | Pages 421 - 422
1 Mar 2021
Perry DC Porter DW Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1431 - 1434
1 Nov 2020
Trompeter AJ Furness H Kanakaris NK Costa ML


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 10, Issue 2 | Pages 134 - 136
1 Feb 2021
Im G

The high prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA), as well as the current lack of disease-modifying drugs for OA, has provided a rationale for regenerative medicine as a possible treatment modality for OA treatment. In this editorial, the current status of regenerative medicine in OA including stem cells, exosomes, and genes is summarized along with the author’s perspectives. Despite a tremendous interest, so far there is very little evidence proving the efficacy of this modality for clinical application. As symptomatic relief is not sufficient to justify the high cost associated with regenerative medicine, definitive structural improvement that would last for years or decades and obviate or delay the need for joint arthroplasty is essential for regenerative medicine to retain a place among OA treatment methods.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(2):134–136.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 1 | Pages 1 - 2
1 Jan 2021
Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 6 | Pages 658 - 660
1 Jun 2020
Judge A Metcalfe D Whitehouse MR Parsons N Costa M


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 4 | Pages 403 - 406
1 Apr 2020
Trompeter A


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1466 - 1468
1 Dec 2019
Ramasamy A Humphrey J Robinson AHN


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1555 - 1556
1 Dec 2017
Amin AK Simpson AHRW Hall AC


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 10 | Pages 610 - 611
1 Oct 2017
Simpson AHRW


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 2 | Pages 147 - 150
1 Feb 2017
Costa ML Tutton E Achten J Grant R Slowther AM

Traditionally, informed consent for clinical research involves the patient reading an approved Participant Information Sheet, considering the information presented and having as much time as they need to discuss the study information with their friends and relatives, their clinical care and the research teams. This system works well in the ‘planned’ or ‘elective’ setting. But what happens if the patient requires urgent treatment for an injury or emergency?

This article reviews the legal framework which governs informed consent in the emergency setting, discusses how the approach taken may vary according to the details of the emergency and the treatment required, and reports on the patients’ view of providing consent following a serious injury. We then provide some practical tips for managing the process of informed consent in the context of injuries and emergencies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:147–150.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 4 | Pages 419 - 420
1 Apr 2017
Costa ML Griffin XL Parsons N Dritsaki M Perry D


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 4 | Pages 435 - 436
1 Apr 2016
McNally MA


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 7 | Pages 871 - 874
1 Jul 2015
Breakwell LM Cole AA Birch N Heywood C

The effective capture of outcome measures in the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in the Crimean war in the 1850s.

Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself.

With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store and interpret data.

Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry. Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000 patients have been entered onto the database.

There has been significant publicity regarding the collection of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores. Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves, with many more entered by the surgical teams.

Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results be reported and in what forum?

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:871–4.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 5 | Pages 567 - 568
1 May 2014
K. Graham H Narayanan UG


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 88-B, Issue 4 | Pages 421 - 426
1 Apr 2006
Pountos I Jones E Tzioupis C McGonagle D Giannoudis PV