Excellent journal

Dear Sir,

Thank you for an excellent journal. Your first issue was a great read and I am really looking forward to the next issue.

However, in response to Dr Aprato’s letter¹ that we do not seem to follow the best evidence, you might be interested in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register's 2010 report.² Here, there is an interesting revision of the earlier findings that cemented implants fare better than uncemented ones. When excluding uncemented implants that have been withdrawn over the period 1992-2010 their conclusion is:

In summary we find no clear differences between cemented and uncemented fixation regarding risk of revision irrespective of cause. The different ways of fixing an implant are associated with different types of complications.²

This does once again show the complexity of orthopaedic surgery and why it is such an exciting field, where we are continually faced with having to re-evaluate old truths.

As to the format of the journal I really like the length of the summaries but I find myself wondering what research team was behind the article and what paper the original was in. I guess you have held discussions where to place the references but, if you are reconsidering positioning the references under the summaries, I would appreciate it.

Yours sincerely,

Max Gordon, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and PhD student

Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, DanderydsSjukhus, S-18288 Stockholm, Sweden.

Editor-in-Chief’s comment:

This letter has been most helpful, not only in its comments based on the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, but also in respect of the positioning of the references. What do you, our readers, think? We chose the end of each subsection of Roundup³⁶⁰ so as not to disrupt the reading flow. But are we right or are we wrong? All comments by email, please, to me at editor360@boneandjoint.org.uk. You can be sure that we will look at every email or letter in detail.