Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: Study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research

Bone regeneration: current concepts and future directions

Bone regeneration is a complex, well-orchestrated physiological process of bone formation, which can be seen during normal fracture healing, and is involved in continuous remodelling throughout adult life. However, there are complex clinical conditions in which bone regeneration is required in large quantity, such as for skeletal reconstruction of large bone defects created by trauma, infection, tumour resection and skeletal abnormalities, or cases in which the regenerative process is compromised, including avascular necrosis, atrophic non-unions and osteoporosis. Currently, there is a plethora of different strategies to augment the impaired or 'insufficient' bone-regeneration process, including the 'gold standard' autologous bone graft, free fibula vascularised graft, allograft implantation, and use of growth factors, osteoconductive scaffolds, osteoprogenitor cells and distraction osteogenesis. Improved 'local' strategies in terms of tissue engineering and gene therapy, or even 'systemic' enhancement of bone repair, are under intense investigation, in an effort to overcome the limitations of the current methods, to produce bone-graft substitutes with biomechanical properties that are as identical to normal bone as possible, to accelerate the overall regeneration process, or even to address systemic conditions, such as skeletal disorders and osteoporosis

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Total Hip Arthroplasty After Acetabular Fracture Is Associated With Lower Survivorship and More Complications

© 2015, The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®. Background: Despite modern fracture management techniques allowing for near anatomic reduction of acetabular fractures, there continues to be a risk of posttraumatic arthritis and need for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Few well-controlled studies have compared THA after acetabular fractures with THAs performed for other indications in terms of survivorship or complications, and none, to our knowledge, present 10-year survivorship data in this setting. Questions/purposes: (1) How does the 10-year survival of THA compare between those patients who underwent THA after an acetabular fracture and those who underwent THA for primary arthritis or avascular necrosis (AVN)? (2) Is there an increased risk of serious complications like infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening as well as heterotopic ossification associated with a THA performed after a previous acetabular fracture? Methods: This retrospective case-control study compared findings of patients who underwent THA after acetabular fracture versus a matched cohort of patients who had received a primary THA for primary osteoarthritis or AVN. Between 1987 and 2011, we performed 95 THAs after acetabular fracture; of those, 74 (78%) met inclusion criteria and had documented followup beyond 2 years in our institutional registry. We selected 74 matched patients based on an algorithm that matched patients based on preoperative diagnosis, date of operation, age, gender, and type of prosthesis. During this time, we performed approximately 8000 THAs that were potentially available for matching based on complete followup beyond 2 years. We compared cases and control subjects using the Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimator as well as a comparison of the proportions in each group that developed major complications (including infection, dislocation, loosening, and heterotopic ossification) based a retrospective chart review. Results: The 10-year survivorship after THA was lower in patients with a previous acetabular fracture than in the matched cohort (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 64%–78%, versus 90%, 95% CI, 86–95%; p \u3c 0.001). There was no difference in the 10-year survival rate for those patients whose acetabular fracture was initially treated conservatively and those treated by open reduction and internal fixation. Patients with previous acetabular fracture had a higher likelihood of developing infection (7% [five of 74] versus 0% [zero of 74]; odds ratio [OR], 11.79; p = 0.028), dislocation (11% [eight of 74] versus 3% [two of 74]; OR, 4.36; p = 0.048), or heterotopic ossification (43% [32 of 74] versus 16% [12 of 74]; OR, 3.93; p \u3c 0.001). Conclusions: In this case-control study, patients with a prior acetabular fracture had markedly inferior 10-year survivorship and more frequent serious complications when compared with patients undergoing THA for primary osteoarthritis or AVN. Given these findings, management of these complex cases should be in highly specialized units where the expertise of arthroplasty and trauma reconstruction is available. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study