The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: Ibisne in medio tutissimus?

Early arthroplasty designs were associated with a high level of anterior knee pain as they failed to cater for the patello-femoral joint. Patellar resurfacing was heralded as the saviour safeguarding patient satisfaction and success but opinion on its necessity has since deeply divided the scientific community and has become synonymous to topics of religion or politics. Opponents of resurfacing contend that the native patella provides better patellar tracking, improved clinical function, and avoids implant-related complications, whilst proponents argue that patients have less pain, are overall more satisfied, and avert the need for secondary resurfacing. The question remains whether complications associated with patellar resurfacing including those arising from future component revision outweigh the somewhat increased incidence of anterior knee pain recorded in unresurfaced patients. The current scientific literature, which is often affected by methodological limitations and observer bias, remains confusing as it provides evidence in support of both sides of the argument, whilst blinded satisfaction studies comparing resurfaced and non-resurfaced knees generally reveal equivalent results. Even national arthroplasty register data show wide variations in the proportion of patellar resurfacing between countries that cannot be explained by cultural differences alone. Advocates who always resurface or never resurface indiscriminately expose the patella to a random choice. Selective resurfacing offers a compromise by providing a decision algorithm based on a propensity for improved clinical success, whilst avoiding potential complications associated with unnecessary resurfacing. Evidence regarding the validity of selection criteria, however, is missing, and the decision when to resurface is often based on intuitive reasoning. Our lack of understanding why, irrespective of pre-operative symptoms and patellar resurfacing, some patients may suffer pain following TKA and others may not have so far stifled our efforts to make the strategy of selective resurfacing succeed. We should hence devote our efforts in defining predictive criteria and indicators that will enable us to reliably identify those individuals who might benefit from a resurfacing procedure. Level of evidence V

Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays

The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference

Developing reproducible bioinformatics analysis workflows for heterogeneous computing environments to support African genomics

Background: The Pan-African bioinformatics network, H3ABioNet, comprises 27 research institutions in 17 African countries. H3ABioNet is part of the Human Health and Heredity in Africa program (H3Africa), an African-led research consortium funded by the US National Institutes of Health and the UK Wellcome Trust, aimed at using genomics to study and improve the health of Africans. A key role of H3ABioNet is to support H3Africa projects by building bioinformatics infrastructure such as portable and reproducible bioinformatics workflows for use on heterogeneous African computing environments. Processing and analysis of genomic data is an example of a big data application requiring complex interdependent data analysis workflows. Such bioinformatics workflows take the primary and secondary input data through several computationally-intensive processing steps using different software packages, where some of the outputs form inputs for other steps. Implementing scalable, reproducible, portable and easy-to-use workflows is particularly challenging. Results: H3ABioNet has built four workflows to support (1) the calling of variants from high-throughput sequencing data; (2) the analysis of microbial populations from 16S rDNA sequence data; (3) genotyping and genome-wide association studies; and (4) single nucleotide polymorphism imputation. A week-long hackathon was organized in August 2016 with participants from six African bioinformatics groups, and US and European collaborators. Two of the workflows are built using the Common Workflow Language framework (CWL) and two using Nextflow. All the workflows are containerized for improved portability and reproducibility using Docker, and are publicly available for use by members of the H3Africa consortium and the international research community. Conclusion: The H3ABioNet workflows have been implemented in view of offering ease of use for the end user and high levels of reproducibility and portability, all while following modern state of the art bioinformatics data processing protocols. The H3ABioNet workflows will service the H3Africa consortium projects and are currently in use. All four workflows are also publicly available for research scientists worldwide to use and adapt for their respective needs. The H3ABioNet workflows will help develop bioinformatics capacity and assist genomics research within Africa and serve to increase the scientific output of H3Africa and its Pan-African Bioinformatics Network