Controversies in new technologies: how should a scientific journal stand?

摘要

The paper of M. Putzier et al. “Charité total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years”: Eur Spine J 2006 Feb;15(2):183–195, Epub 2005 Oct 28, created a lot of reaction and controversy, partially documented in the letters to the Editor and the answers published in Eur Spine J 2006, April;15(4):510–522. Specifically the authors of the original Charité disc used the opportunity to comment on the development and their own perception of the outcome of the first commercial available lumbar disc replacement. The letters to the Editor became quite voluminous, and it cannot be the function of a peer-reviewed journal to allow under the label of a letter to the Editor basically a scientific resume, which would normally not pass in a peer-review process. In this specific context—exceptionally—we allowed that, because the significance of the new technology of disc replacement is a major issue of today’s spinal care and spine surgery. Since these implants are gradually invading the spinal market for regular clinical use, a lot of controversy and debates about the sense and nonsense of this new technology has been provoked.