Comprehensive Analysis of Scientific Output in Hip and Knee Arthroscopy.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY A global bibliometric comparison of the level of scientific interest and output in the two research areas hip and knee arthroscopy (H-ASC and K-ASC) was carried out. In addition, the different degrees of publication activity in the countries and institutes performing this research were investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS Publications from 1945-2020 listed in the Web of Science Core Collection were included in the study. Using the web application Science Performance Evaluation (SciPE), quantitative and qualitative aspects were evaluated. Subsequently, the date of publication, author information, and other metadata were analysed. RESULTS Since 1945, 3,924 studies have been published on K-ASC and 2,163 on H-ASC. The majority of the publications which have appeared since 2016 dealt with the topic of H-ASC (H-ASC: 241.2 publications/year; K-ASC: 217.4 publications/year). The USA published the most on both topics (H-ASC: 1,123 publications; K-ASC: 1,078 publications). More countries and institutes participated in K-ASC (3,008 institutes, 82 countries) than in H-ASC (103 institutes, 57 countries). The ten institutes with the most publications accounted for 36.71% and 12.34% of all publications on H-ASC and K-ASC, respectively. H-ASC received 78.12% of its funding from private sponsors while K-ASC was supported mainly by governmental/nonprofit sponsors (70.92%). CONCLUSIONS This study provides the first scientific comparison between H-ASC and K-ASC. Measured by qualitative and quantitative aspects, K-ASC was the most flourishing research area overall. In the last ten to five years, interest has shifted towards HASC with an increasing number of publications and a higher rate of citations. Key words: knee arthroscopy, hip arthroscopy, bibliometric comparison.

The safety and efficacy of treatment with air abrasion technology.

AIMS: To evaluate patient and operator exposure to respirable particulates following the use of air abrasion in tooth preparation, and to compare the microleakage of pit and fissure sealants after conventional, bur and air abrasion preparation of the pits and fissures. METHODS: To examine air abrasion safety, sampling data were collected using a physical model of the upper torso of a patient. Previously extracted bovine incisors were prepared using an air abrasion instrument. Patient and operator exposure samples were collected. The variables examined included the size of the alumina oxide particles, the speed of particle delivery and the method of dust collection. To assess the efficacy of air abrasion, 36 extracted human molars were divided into three groups. The groups were prepared by conventional acid etching, opening the pits and fissures with a round bur, or by air abrasion. To simulate oral conditions, sealed teeth were immersed in artificial saliva and thermocycled. Teeth were immersed in a 1% solution of methylene blue and sectioned to assess the microleakage associated with each sealant. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Dust from the KCP 1000 is insufficient to be a health hazard to patients or operators, (2) chair-side suction can be used as an alternative to the KCP 1000 suction, (3) superior sealants were obtained when tooth surfaces were prepared by a bur, compared to air abrasion and conventionally prepared surfaces, and (4) air abrasion tooth surfaces demonstrated less microleakage than conventionally prepared tooth surfaces.