The annual number of retracted publications in the scientific literature is rapidly increasing. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency and reason for retraction of cancer publications and to determine how journals in the cancer field handle retracted articles. We searched three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) from database inception until 2015 for retracted journal publications related to cancer research. For each article, the reason for retraction was categorized as plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, error, authorship issues, or ethical issues. Accessibility of the retracted article was defined as intact, removed, or available but with a watermark over each page. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including number of citations, journal name and impact factor, study design, and time between publication and retraction. The publications were screened in duplicated and two reviewers extracted and categorized data. Following database search and article screening, we identified 571 retracted cancer publications. The majority (76.4%) of cancer retractions were issued in the most recent decade, with 16.6 and 6.7% of the retractions in the prior two decades respectively. Retractions were issued by journals with impact factors ranging from 0 (discontinued) to 55.8. The average impact factor was 5.4 (median 3.54, IQR 1.8–5.5). On average, a retracted article was cited 45 times (median 18, IQR 6–51), with a range of 0–742. Reasons for retraction include plagiarism (14.4%), fraud (28.4%), duplicate publication (18.2%), error (24.2%), authorship issues (3.9%), and ethical issues (2.1%). The reason for retraction was not stated in 9.8% of cases. Twenty-nine percent of retracted articles remain available online in their original form. Retractions in cancer research are increasing in frequency at a similar rate to all biomedical research retractions. Cancer retractions are largely due to academic misconduct. Consequences to cancer patients, the public at large, and the research community can be substantial and should be addressed with future research. Despite the implications of this important issue, some cancer journals currently fall short of the current guidelines for clearly stating the reason for retraction and identifying the publication as retracted.

Update: This article was updated on February 9, 2021, because of a previous error. On page 269, in the Note at the end of the article, the surname that had read “Merner” now reads “Mener.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021 Mar 17;103(6):e25. Background: Open fractures are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. The threshold time to debridement that reduces the infection rate is unclear. Methods: We searched all available databases to identify observational studies and randomized trials related to open fracture care. We then conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the observational studies, using raw and adjusted estimates, to determine if there was an association between the timing of initial debridement and infection. Results: We identified 84 studies (18,239 patients) for the primary analysis. In unadjusted analyses comparing various “late” time thresholds for debridement versus “early” thresholds, there was an association between timing of debridement and surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.49, p < 0.001, I² = 30%, 84 studies, n = 18,239). For debridement performed between 12 and 24 hours versus earlier than 12 hours, the OR was higher in tibial fractures (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.87, p = 0.05, I² = 19%, 12 studies, n = 2,065), and even more so in Gustilo type-IIIB tibial fractures (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.89, p = 0.004, I² = 23%, 12 studies, n = 1,255). An analysis of Gustilo type-III fractures showed a progressive increase in the risk of infection with time. Critical time thresholds included 12 hours (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.78, p < 0.001, I² = 0%, 16 studies, n = 3,502) and 24 hours (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.73 to 2.72, p < 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 studies, n = 5,214). Conclusions: High-grade open fractures demonstrated an increased risk of infection with progressive delay to debridement. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instruction for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.

Background: The inferior glenohumeral ligament, the most important static anterior stabilizer of the shoulder, becomes disrupted in humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesions. Unfortunately, HAGL lesions commonly go unrecognized. A missed HAGL during an index operation to treat anterior shoulder instability may lead to persistent instability. Currently, there are no large studies describing the indications for surgical repair or the outcomes of patients with HAGL lesions. Purpose: To search the literature to identify surgical indications for the treatment of HAGL lesions and discuss reported outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Two reviewers completed a comprehensive literature search of 3 online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) from inception until May 25, 2016, using the keywords “humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament” or “HAGL” to generate a broad search. Systematic screening of eligible studies was undertaken in duplicate. Abstracted data were organized in table format, with descriptive statistics presented. Results: After screening, 18 studies comprising 118 patients were found that described surgical intervention and outcomes for HAGL lesions. The mean patient was 22 years (range, 12-50 years), and 82% were male. Sports injuries represented 72% of all HAGL injuries. The main surgical indication was primary anterior instability, followed by pain and failed nonoperative management. Commonly associated injuries in patients with identified HAGL lesions included a Bankart lesion (15%), Hill-Sachs lesions (13%), and glenoid bone loss (7%). Reporting of outcome scores varied among the included studies. Meta-analysis was not possible, but all included studies reported significantly improved postoperative stability and function. There were no demonstrated differences in outcomes for patients treated with open versus arthroscopic surgical techniques. All but 2 patients undergoing operative management for HAGL lesions were able to return to sport at their previous levels; these included Olympians and professional athletes. Conclusion: HAGL lesions typically occur in younger male patients and are often associated with Bankart lesions and bone loss. Open and arthroscopic management techniques are both effective in preventing recurrent instability.

Background: The open-access model has changed the landscape of academic publishing over the last 20 years. An unfortunate consequence has been the advent of predatory publishing, which exploits the open-access model for monetary gain by collecting publishing fees from authors under the pretense of being a legitimate publication while providing little-to-no peer review. This study aims to investigate the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthopaedic literature. Methods: We searched Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers and another list of predatory journals for journal titles that are possibly related to orthopaedics. We then searched their web sites for the following information: total number of articles published, journal country of origin, author country of origin, article processing charge (APC), quoted review time, and location of the listed headquarters. We also reported the article quality of a random sample of these journals. We consulted InCites Journal Citation Reports to determine the number of nonpredatory orthopaedic publications that are indexed, and we manually searched a random sample of these legitimate journals for Beall’s criteria. Additionally, we searched the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and PubMed databases for any possible predatory journal titles. Results: We found 104 suspected predatory publishers, representing 225 possible predatory journals. One journal was indexed in the DOAJ, and 20 were indexed in PubMed. Review time was not identified for 56.2% of the journals, and 36.5% quoted a review time of <1 month. Nearly half of the listed addresses of the publishers were either unsearchable or led to residential or empty lots. Eighty-two legitimate journals were identified. The median APC was $420 for predatory journals and $2,900 for legitimate journals. We found that a random sample of the legitimate journals published studies with higher reporting standards, but a few also contained 1 criterion that is found on Beall’s list. Conclusions: This study highlights the scope of orthopaedic predatory publishing. Possibly predatory journals outnumber legitimate orthopaedic journals. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the suspected predatory journals and consult available online tools to identify them because distinguishing them from legitimate journals can be a challenge.

Background: Operative management for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) primarily consists of arthroplasty. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the so-called gold standard for multicompartmental OA. In selected patients, specifically those with unicompartmental OA and no definite contraindications, realignment osteotomies and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are viable options. UKA offers several advantages over TKA, including preservation of both cruciate ligaments, faster recovery, and less osseous resection. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship of UKAs and risk factors for all-cause revision surgery in patients with a minimum follow-up of 10 years in a large population-based database. Methods: We performed a population-based cohort study using linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. We identified all UKAs performed from January 2002 through December 2006. All patients had a minimum 10-year follow-up. Demographic data and outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. We used a Cox proportional hazards model with the Fine and Gray method accounting for competing risks such as death to analyze the effect of surgical and patient factors on the risk of revision of UKA. Results: A total of 4,385 patients were identified as having undergone primary UKA from 2002 through 2006 in Ontario. Of these patients, 779 underwent revision surgery, for a cumulative risk for all-cause revision of 16.5% at 10 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.4% to 17.7%). Mechanical loosening was the reason for 83.4% of all revisions. Male sex, diabetes, an age younger than 50 years, and cementless implants were significant risk factors for revision surgery. Residence in a rural or urban setting, income quintile, discharge destination, and type of OA were not associated with the risk of revision. Survivorship at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years was 97.2%, 90.5%, 83.5%, and 81.9%, respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a >80% long-term survivorship for UKA based on a large administrative database sample and identified important risk factors for failure including male sex, younger age, diabetes, and cementless fixation. This study found rates of survivorship similar to those previously reported in the literature, while identifying key risk factors for failure. Patient selection has always been identified as a key factor in ensuring successful UKA, and the risk factors identified in this study may help guide decision-making for surgeons and patients dealing with unicompartmental knee OA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.