Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Advertisement

Currently accepted at: Interactive Journal of Medical Research

Date Submitted: Mar 15, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Mar 15, 2019 - Mar 22, 2019
Date Accepted: May 2, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

This paper has been accepted and is currently in production.

It will appear shortly on 10.2196/14028

The final accepted version (not copyedited yet) is in this tab.

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Orthopedic surgeons’ perspective on the decision-making process for using bioprinter cartilage grafts: a web-based survey

Salvador Verges , Fernández-Luque L, López Seguí F, Yildirim M, Salvador-Mata B, García Cuyàs F

Orthopedic surgeons’ perspective on the decision-making process for using bioprinter cartilage grafts: a web-based survey

Interact J Med Res 2019;8(2):e14028

DOI: 10.2196/14028

PMID: 31094326

PMCID: 6540724

Orthopedic surgeons’ perspective on the decision-making process for using bioprinter cartilage grafts: a web-based survey

  • Àngels Salvador Verges; 
  • Luis Fernández-Luque; 
  • Francesc López Seguí; 
  • Meltem Yildirim; 
  • Bertran Salvador-Mata; 
  • Francesc García Cuyàs

ABSTRACT

Background:

Traumatic and degenerative lesions in the cartilage are one of the most difficult and frustrating types of injuries for orthopedic surgeons and patients.

Objective:

This study aims to determine the extent of knowledge and expectations of orthopedic surgeons on the clinical implantation of bioprinted cartilage.

Methods:

The survey, which was anonymous and self-managed, was sent to orthopedic surgeons from the Catalan Society of Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery. In accordance with the method devised by Eysenbach, the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys was used to analyze the results. The following were taken into consideration: the type and origin of the information received, its relevance, the level of acceptance of new technologies and how it connects with age, years, and place of experience in the field.

Results:

Regarding the key factors that would constitute the ideal graft: 36/86 believed the age of the patient to be a restriction; 53/86 that the size of the lesion should be between 1 and 2 cm to be considered for this type of technology, and 51/86 that it should last more than 5 years. Considering the link between the importance of clinical trials and the surgeon’s age, it was clear that those over 50 years of age (38/86, 41.8%) thought that clinical evidence was more essential than those from the other age-groups.

Conclusions:

The perspective of orthopedic surgeons depends highly on the information they receive and whether it is specialized and consistent, as this will condition their acceptance of and the implementation of the bioprinted cartilage.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Salvador Verges , Fernández-Luque L, López Seguí F, Yildirim M, Salvador-Mata B, García Cuyàs F

Orthopedic surgeons’ perspective on the decision-making process for using bioprinter cartilage grafts: a web-based survey

Interactive Journal of Medical Research. (forthcoming/in press)

DOI: 10.2196/14028

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/14028

PMID: 31094326

PMCID: 6540724


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.