ISSN 1028-4427 (Print)

ISSN 2542-131X (Online)

Scientific and practical peer-reviewed medical journal

Founded in 1995 in Kurgan in memory of academician G.A. Ilizarov

Chief Editor: A.V. Gubin, MD

Journal founder: Russian Ilizarov Scientific Center for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics of the RF ministry of health

Journal publisher: Russian Ilizarov Scientific Center for Restorative Traumatology and Orthopaedics of the RF ministry of health
6, M. Ulyanova street, Kurgan, 640014, Russia

Recommended by the Supreme Attestation Board of Russia: included in the list of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals that publish main scientific results of the theses for scientific degrees of doctor and candidate of medical sciences

The journal is issued quarterly in Russian and English and is distributed in the Russian Federation, CIS countries and other foreign countries.

“Genij Ortopedii” is free for all authors that submit manuscripts.

It is indexed in:

  • Russian scientific citation index (RINC)
  • Abstractand citation database SCOPUS
  • VINITI abstracts and database journal (All-Russia Institute for Scientific and Technical Information);
  • EBSCO electronic and information services
  • Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

 Articles acquire DOI and are linked to CrossRef system.

 The electronic version of the journal is located on the sites:

    • Genij Ortopedii site with a free access to the Journal’s achieves (since 1993)
    • Scientific electronic library    ;
    • Scientific electronic library   
    • publication social platform   
    • Directory of Open Access Journals   

 

       

Since 2013, there is a free mobile application of Genij Ortopedii for iPad and Android based tablets. 

 

 


Journal Homepage Image

Letter from the Editor

Do we need a clinical approach in orthopaedics?

It was a pleasure for me to attend a remarkable lecture on Diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy preventing errors in determining the root level involved. The talk was given by American guru of cervical spine surgery David Riew at AOSpine symposium held in Moscow on June 2018. David did not demonstrate an array of MRI and CT scans. None of them were included in his presentation. The whole lecture was devoted to relevant clinical examination techniques that would prevent becoming a victim of imaging findings. Unfortunately such an approach is likely to be an exemption. A good lesson from a very experienced and competent doctor.

A clinical approach described in classical papers of orthopaedic surgery can be found only in old textbooks. There is no place and time allotted for it in routine orthopaedic and trauma practice. And there is a variety of objective reasons for this. Widely used CT and MRI examinations create misleading assurance of diagnostic accuracy. We operate on far more patients than we did in the past with increasing pace and volume of surgical aggression. This generates more and more narrow subspecialties and a purely technological approach to the treatment. Bureaucratization and the wide spread of formal inspection authority control coupled with the necessity of arranging a payment adjustment form for the patient result in organizational-financial approach to health care. Electronic data interchange and online consultations offer a lower cost alternative to clinical examination and have a reverse effect of losing medical intuitive judgments and expertise in complex clinical decision-making. It means that greater availability of orthopaedic treatment owing to modern technologies may carry higher clinical risks. The outcome will be a greater number of thoroughly examined patients who are not cured. Individuals used to be exposed to a wide range of additional examinations are not likely to have an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon and would choose to have MRI or CT examination. Another side effect of absent clinical approach is overestimated misleading statistical data that cannot be adequately analyzed. Would the technologies be able to completely replace clinical approach? Yes, the possibility becomes available with the development of artificial intelligence. If it happens there will be no need for orthopaedic surgeons in that capacity. We should take no offence so far that patients have greater trust in osteopathic physicians who can gather meticulous medical history and make an accurate clinical diagnosis with more time being available for each patient.

Orthopaedic community has to work in a concerted effort to develop new clinical guidelines on treatment of different diseases and formulate uniform approaches to clinical evaluation of the most common syndromes and symptoms in orthopaedics. For this, simple notions are to be specified first. For instance, a deformity is to be measured as deviation from 0or from 180°?

A.V. Gubin, MD

Chief Editor of Genij Ortopedii