RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Retracted publications are an often-overlooked issue affecting the scientific community, and recent data confirms the overall number of retracted publications is rising. While this has previously been looked at within orthopaedic surgery, a contemporary understanding of retractions is required due to the rapid expansion in publications. Our study aimed to assess the retracted publications within clinical orthopaedic research to evaluate for characteristics and trends. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on December 14, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There were 4 databases that were queried to identify retracted publications in clinical orthopaedics that assessed operative and nonoperative orthopaedic interventions (excluding basic science). Articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers; those meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for various characteristics, including reasons for retraction based on Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. RESULTS: There were 233 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were retracted between January 1, 1990, and December 14, 2023. Clinical orthopaedics represented 1.18% of all retracted publications identified through PubMed over this period. There were 87 articles that were retracted in 2023, up from 17 in 2022 (a 412% increase). Retracted studies were published in journals with 2022 impact factors up to 9.3, with an average of 3.1 (SD [standard deviation] 1.9). A total of 39.5% of the retracted studies were published in orthopaedic journals, and 60.9% of the retracted articles were published in exclusively open-access journals. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 2.1 years (SD 2.2). Retracted articles have been cited up to 180 times (mean 8.6; SD 20). Reasons for retraction included misconduct (45.9%), plagiarism (11.6%), redundant publication (11.6%), unethical research (10.3%), error (9.4%), and others (10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of retractions in the clinical orthopaedic literature is increasing. Clinical research is the basis for clinical practice guidelines, the gold standard for informing medical decision-making. Retractions may be one harbinger of lower-quality publications; researchers, institutions, and journals together play important roles in maintaining scientific integrity.
RESUMO
Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) is an emerging approach to cardiac arrest. We present two contrasting cases from a high-volume extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) center (defined as greater than 30 ECMO cases per year) without a 24/7 ECPR program to highlight how to establish an ECPR program with a focus on patient selection and outcome optimization. In one case, a patient presented with cardiac arrest during initial triage for chest pain within the emergency department, and in the other case, a patient experienced an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with prolonged no-flow and low-flow time. Despite the lack of a 24/7 ECPR program at the presenting center, both patients received an ECPR evaluation, as both patients presented while all services necessary for ECMO cannulation were available. The in-hospital cardiac arrest patient was successfully cannulated for ECMO during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survived with few complications. The out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patient was deemed a poor candidate for ECPR and expired soon after presentation. These two cases highlight the complex decision-making in ECPR and further illustrate how to create ECPR protocols at a high-volume ECMO center before resources are available for a 24/7 ECPR program.
