Dear Sir,
I greatly enjoyed issue 4 of Bone & Joint360. I believe the rather alarming article: "Cemented hip replacement might be bad for your health", on page 101,2 has certain methodological issues. Perhaps you could ask a senior researcher to comment on the article? I blogged about some of my own thoughts about the methodology: http://gforge.se/2012/08/killer-implants/
There have also been some interesting responses to the article: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3319?tab=responses
Best regards,
Max Gordon, MD, Consultant, Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
P.S. Could you consider reporting years instead of months? In the "Single bundle? Double bundle? Which is best?" on page 133,4 the mean follow-up was 51.15 months. My tired brain takes some time to recalculate this into 4 1/4 years.
Editor-in-Chief’s comment
Thanks so much for these views Dr Gordon. All are duly noted and we rather agree with your opinion about the difficulty of understanding 51.15 months. This was, of course, how the original authors presented their data. For simplicity, our mathematically astute readers will be aware that 51.15 months is actually 4.29166667 years.
1 No authors listed. Cemented hip replacement might be bad for your health. Bone Joint 360 2012;4(1):10-10. Google Scholar
2 McMinn DJ , SnellKI, DanielJ, et al.Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ2012;344:3319.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
3 No authors listed. Single bundle? Double bundle? Which is best? Bone Joint 360 2012;4(1):13-13. Google Scholar
4 Hussein M , van EckCF, CretnikA, DinevskiD, FuFH. Prospective randomized clinical evaluation of conventional single-bundle, anatomic single-bundle, and anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 281 cases with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med2012;40:512–520.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
