Nice piece on the New York Times’ “New Old Age Blog” about old patients getting new joints.
The piece includes messages about shared decision-making and the importance of understanding both potential harms and benefits; about realistic expectations that joint replacement is not a fountain of youth; and about “a caution about so-called minimally invasive joint replacement surgery: the American Academy warns that there’s insufficient evidence that this approach, the subject of much media attention, produces quicker recoveries or better results.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Greg Pawelski
May 24, 2010 at 4:04 pmThanks for pointing out the article Gary. However, it didn’t even broach the subject of orthopedic device-related infections (ODRIs). Both my parents, recipients of knee replacements in their eighties, had to undergo the debilitating effects of post-surgical infections.
Because the percentage of patients aged >65 years is on the rise, the number of patients requiring implants continues to grow, as will the risk for ODRIs. In the United States, 4.4 million people have at least 1 internal fixation device and 1.3 million have an artifical joint.
Sophisticated prevention strategies have been developed during the past two decades to lover the risk of infectious complications in implant surgery. Although the incidence of ODRIs is low, even a low risk of infection can result in a number of patients with ODRIs. And the treatment of such an infection is poorly standardized.
Seven years ago, my mother experienced Biofilm formation to her knee device in her right leg. All implants undergo physiological changes after implantation. The earliest and probably clinically most important step is the “race for the surface,” a contest between tissue cell integration and bacterial adhesion to that same surface.
On contact, body fluids immediately coat all surfaces with a layer of host material, primarily serum proteins and platelets. Adherence progresses to aggregation of microorganisms on the surface of the foreign body, forming a Biofilm. Hers happen to be the deadly pseudomonas aeruginosa.
She had to have her device removed, debridgement, surrounding tissue cured of infection, and then a second prosthetic device implanted five months later. My father was luckier. He went right to antibiotic treatment, for the rest of his life, after an aspiration culture identified the bacterium. His life, however, circumbed to drug-induced pancreatitis, three years later.
My mother is presently fighting another ODRI at 95 years of age. We are hoping to just antibiotic treatment with implant retention will be successful.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like