Start typing something... |
|
|
For the last 3 years you have received a bimonthly e-mail from your national society including the latest new issue of Acta with links to all articles and the issue as an e-zine.
We will now stop the production of separate issues; articles will as per usual be available online (PubMed and PubMedCentral) as soon as they are produced but will no longer be distributed using the issue model.
The new monthly Newsletter will replace the traditional Acta issue, comprising the latest published articles (10-15), some of them in a Selected Highlights section accompanied by a short commentary.
The Newsletter will also be a forum for whatever is of orthopedic interest. We welcome supplementary material; please contact me anders.rydholm@med.lu.se or soeren.overgaard@regionh.dk
Best regards,
Anders Rydholm
Editor-in-chief
| |
|
|
| New Publisher and new website |  | | Acta Orthopaedica is pleased to announce that as of 2022 Medical Journals Sweden AB (MJS) will be taking over as our new publisher. MJS is a small publishing house with a personal service offering that has been adapted to our needs. We believe that with MJS as our publishing partner, NOF and Acta will be well-positioned for the future, putting the journal and its authors at the center. As part of this move, MJS has also redesigned our website, and in the future, all journal information and contents will be found at https://actaorthop.org/. | | | | | | | | Promotion Group | The NOF Editorial Board and ExCom have decided to develop a promotion plan for Acta Orthopaedica. This is to make Acta more visible by using social media through the new publisher. We also consider including new types of articles that can make Acta even more attractive for NOF members and readers.
Søren Overgaard, head of the Acta Promotion Group
(Søren Overgaard, Li Felländer-Tsai, Cecilia Rogmark, Nils Hailer)
| | Join our mailing list | You have been forwarded this newsletter via your national society head, but to continue to receive a monthly newsletter fast and safe please join our mailing list by clicking on the link below. | | | | | |
|
|
Comments by co-editor Søren Overgaard
| Similar periprosthetic joint infection rates after and before a national infection control program: a study of 45,438 primary total knee arthroplasties
Olof Thompson, Annette W-Dahl, Viktor Lindgren, Max Gordon, Otto Robertsson, and Anna Stefánsdóttir
Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 3–10.
The ambitious Swedish nationwide PRISS project (Prosthesis Related Infections Shall be Stopped) aimed to reduce postoperative infection following elective total knee arthroplasty. Unfortunately, no difference in the 2-year cumulative incidence rate of deep infection (periprosthetic joint infection—PJI) of 1.45% was shown. This raises the question of whether factors other than those in the PRISS project may be more important for the risk of PJI or whether interventions may need more evidence and attention to be efficient. Moreover, may the interventions need more attention to be implemented efficiently? |
| | Similar migration for medial congruent and cruciate-retaining tibial components in an anatomic TKA system: a randomized controlled trial of 60 patients followed with RSA for 2 years
Albin Christensson, Magnus Tveit, Uldis Kesteris, and Gunnar Flivik
Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 68–74.
Similar outcome with a new anteverted or a straight standard stem: a randomized study of 72 total hip arthroplasties evaluated with clinical variables, radiostereometry, and DXA up to 2 years
Karin Rilby, Maziar Mohaddes, Emma Nauclér, and Johan Kärrholm
Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 59–67.
These 2 studies on new implants using radiostereometry (RSA) are important because introduction of new implants must be done safely and be evidence based. They are designed as randomized controlled trials. In one, the cemented cruciate-retaining and medial congruent tibial components were compared in total knee arthroplasty. In the other, the new anatomical uncemented stem SP-CL (Static Physiologicus—CementLess), was compared with the Corail stem in total hip arthroplasty. Both studies showed no difference in migration patterns or clinical outcome.
As we know, the important next step is to follow the new implants in a multi-center setting before they are accepted for general use.
|
|
|
|
|
