Article Processing Fees for "Technical Note" articles published in Arthroscopy Techniques

The journal will charge an article processing fee for all Technical Notes upon acceptance for publication in Arthroscopy Techniques, the open access companion to Arthroscopy:
$700 for members of the Arthroscopy Association of North America
$975 for non-members


All submissions to Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery must comply with these Instructions for Authors. Studies should be in compliance with human studies committees and animal welfare regulations at the authors' institutions and also in compliance with Food and Drug Administration guidelines. All manuscripts will be subject to peer review. Letters to the Editor and comments on the Journal's content or policies are always welcome and encouraged.

All manuscripts are to be submitted electronically through the Arthroscopy online submission and review system website (details in Submission section below).


Submission of a manuscript to Arthroscopy for peer review implies that:
  • It is original work, has been written by the stated authors, and has not been published elsewhere, including electronically, in the same form, in any language. Likewise, a similar manuscript has not been submitted to or published by any other journal, by any of the authors
  • Any manuscript submitted to Arthroscopy is not currently being considered for publication by any other journal and will not be submitted for such review while under review by this Journal.
  • If the submission is accepted, it will not be published elsewhere, including electronically in the same form, in any language, without the written consent of the copyright holder.


Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest

Arthroscopy uses the ICMJE disclosure for authors. Each author of a manuscript must complete the form and save it using his or her name. The corresponding author will upload all the authors' completed forms at the time of submission. Download the Arthroscopy Journal ICMJE form here: ICMJE Form

In order to combine the "Fillable PDF" ICMJE disclosure forms from each author of your article, you will first need to "print" each form as "Adobe PDF" which will reformat the form, enabling it to be combined with other forms. To accomplish this, click File, then Print, then select "Adobe PDF" from the printer drop down menu, and click Print. Then save the file to your computer. Once all author forms are saved in this format, you will be able to combine the files.

An easy method to combine files is to select all of the disclosure forms to be combined in the folder where they are stored, right-click, and select "Combine supported files in Acrobat."


Arthroscopy generally limits the number of authors to 7. If there are more than 7 authors, we ask the corresponding author to justify each author's participation using the ICMJE criteria for authorship:
  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


Copyright to all published articles will be held by the Arthroscopy Association of North America. Copyright forms are handled by the production department of the publisher once a manuscript is accepted and scheduled for publication.

Elsevier supports responsible sharing

Find out how you can share your research published in Elsevier journals.

Registration of Clinical Trials

Clinical trial registration (prospective publication of clinical research study authors, title, purpose, hypothesis, methods including statistical methods, and confirmation of Institutional Review Board approval) mitigates against bias resulting from selective reporting of results. Clinical trials beginning patient enrollment after January 1, 2012, will not be accepted for publication in Arthroscopy without prospective registration of the trial (i.e., before enrollment of the first patient). Trials may be registered in any national or international registry. Include details on the separate title page only.

Except in rare circumstances where the temporal effect of the outcome being measured is brief, clinical trials will not be accepted for publication in Arthroscopy without 24 months' minimum follow-up for all subjects who are enrolled and reported. The Journal strongly encourages the use of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines when designing and reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The criteria outlined by the CONSORT group are meant to assist in improving the overall quality of RCTs, and provides a minimum set of recommendations for reporting on RCTs. There is a 25-item checklist designed to facilitate study setup, reporting, and interpretation. The overall goal of using the CONSORT criteria is to facilitate the study design from the outset, and provide for a high-quality and prudently conceived RCT. The guidelines can be found at


After registering as an author through the Arthroscopy online submission and review system website (, you will be guided step by step through the uploading of your own files and approving of the single PDF that will be created from them. You can track the progress of your manuscript through our website. Communications about a manuscript will be handled through e-mail. Please access the website for more specifics about online submission, including a tutorial for authors, artwork guidelines, and a link to author support by e-mail that is monitored around the clock.

Use of inclusive language

Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities. Content should make no assumptions about the beliefs or commitments of any reader; contain nothing which might imply that one individual is superior to another on the grounds of age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition; and use inclusive language throughout. Authors should ensure that writing is free from bias, stereotypes, slang, reference to dominant culture and/or cultural assumptions. We advise to seek gender neutrality by using plural nouns ("clinicians, patients/clients") as default/wherever possible to avoid using "he, she," or "he/she." We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to personal attributes such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition unless they are relevant and valid. When coding terminology is used, we recommend to avoid offensive or exclusionary terms such as "master", "slave", "blacklist" and "whitelist". We suggest using alternatives that are more appropriate and (self-) explanatory such as "primary", "secondary", "blocklist" and "allowlist". These guidelines are meant as a point of reference to help identify appropriate language but are by no means exhaustive or definitive.

Reporting sex- and gender-based analyses

Reporting guidance

For research involving or pertaining to humans, animals or eukaryotic cells, investigators should integrate sex and gender-based analyses (SGBA) into their research design according to funder/sponsor requirements and best practices within a field. Authors should address the sex and/or gender dimensions of their research in their article. In cases where they cannot, they should discuss this as a limitation to their research's generalizability. Importantly, authors should explicitly state what definitions of sex and/or gender they are applying to enhance the precision, rigor and reproducibility of their research and to avoid ambiguity or conflation of terms and the constructs to which they refer (see Definitions section below). Authors can refer to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelinesand the SAGER guidelines checklist. These offer systematic approaches to the use and editorial review of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, outcome reporting and research interpretation - however, please note there is no single, universally agreed-upon set of guidelines for defining sex and gender.


Sex generally refers to a set of biological attributes that are associated with physical and physiological features (e.g., chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). A binary sex categorization (male/female) is usually designated at birth ("sex assigned at birth"), most often based solely on the visible external anatomy of a newborn. Gender generally refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men and gender-diverse people that occur in a historical and cultural context and may vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and how power is distributed in society. Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man) and unchanging whereas these constructs actually exist along a spectrum and include additional sex categorizations and gender identities such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development (DSD) or identify as non-binary. Moreover, the terms "sex" and "gender" can be ambiguous?thus it is important for authors to define the manner in which they are used. In addition to this definition guidance and the SAGER guidelines, the resources on this pageoffer further insight around sex and gender in research studies.


Peer Review

This journal operates a double blind review process, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. All contributions are typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. More information on types of peer review.


Manuscripts should be typed double-spaced with continuous line numbering. Submit in this order; see details in the following sections: Separate (unblinded) title page, blinded title page, blinded text, references, figure and video legends, tables, figures, and conflict of interest forms. Arthroscopy follows style points for text and references of the AMA Manual of Style.

Recommended Maximums for Articles Submitted to Arthroscopy

Type of Article Number of Words* Figures (Figure Parts) Tables
Original Article 4,000 7 (15) 4
Level V Evidence 1,600 0 0
Systematic Review 4,500 7 (15) 4
Meta-analysis 4,000 7 (15) 4
Technical Note 1,500 no limit 4
Case Report (rarely accepted)
Letter to Editor & Reply 500 2 (2) 0

* Maximum number of words is exclusive of the title page, blind title page, references, and figure legends.
Level V Evidence articles are submitted at the invitation of the Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editor-in-Chief.
Technical Notes are now published only in Arthroscopy Techniques. Video is required for submission. The video must be narrated and list disclosures on an opening slide. Submit as for Arthroscopy at

Separate Title Page

A separate (unblinded) title page of each manuscript should include the following essential information:
  1. Title. Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
  2. All Authors' full names, degrees, and affiliations. Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this clearly. Present each author's affiliation and address below the names.
  3. Corresponding Author. Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all stages of reviewing and publication, and after publication. Ensure that telephone numbers (with country and area code) are provided in addition to the e-mail address and the complete postal address. Contact details must be kept up to date by the corresponding author.
  4. In addition, include IRB and RCT information, as well as a short running title (maximum of 45 characters and spaces). Include any acknowledgment of persons who provided help during the research/writing (e.g., language help, writing assistance, or proof reading the manuscript, etc.).

Blinding the Manuscript

Because all manuscripts are blinded to reviewers, the first page of the blinded manuscript must be a blinded title page that lists only the title. Likewise, in the text, do not include any identifying information, such as an author's initials or the names of institutions where the study was done, or a phrase such as "our study" that, when followed by a citation, reveals authorship of the present manuscript in the reference list.

Manuscript Structure

1. Abstract

Original Articles, abstracts should be a maximum of 300 words and structured to include the following sections: Purpose: One or 2 sentences that simply state the purpose with no background information or hypothesis. Methods: Provide, with sufficient detail, the methods of the study including selection criteria. Results: Provide results, with data, P values, and standard deviation of mean or 95% confidence intervals. Present most important findings first. Please provide exact P values (not P <) and numbers to support your methods findings. Conclusions: State only what your study found; do not include extraneous information not backed up by the results. Level of Evidence (for human studies) or Clinical Relevance (basic science or in vitro study: why is this study important from a clinical standpoint?).

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, the abstract and text should be structured as an Original Article.

Technical Notes for Arthroscopy Techniques, the abstract should be an unstructured summary (maximum length, 200 words). The body of these manuscripts should consist of unstructured summary abstract, Introduction, Technique, and Discussion, plus references and figure legends and video legend.

Case Reports, the text should consist of unstructured summary abstract, Introduction, Case Report, and Discussion, plus references and figure legends.

Level V Evidence articles, the abstract should be an unstructured summary (maximum length, 300 words). See the Levels of Evidence table.

2. Introduction

The introduction of an Original Article should succinctly state the problem or controversy that led you to undertake the study, including a concise review of only the most relevant literature. Conclude the introduction by stating the purpose of the study and your hypothesis. The purpose in the Introduction should match that of the Abstract.

3. Methods

Describe the study design (prospective or retrospective, inclusion and exclusion criteria, duration). If prospective or a cadaver study, the number of enrolled subjects is reported in Methods. If retrospective, the study population (numbers, demographics, length of follow-up) should be in Results.

Include IRB and animal studies information. IRB approval is required for all human studies except retrospective and cadaver studies (unless the institution where the study was performed requires it).

The statistics that you have used to analyze the data should be described in detail. You cannot make the statement, "We found no significant difference between the two groups" unless a power study was done and you include in the text the value of alpha, beta, and standard deviation. Use of the word significant requires your reporting an exact P value. Confidence intervals of 95% are required whenever the results of survivorship analysis are given in the text, tables, or figures. Use of the word correlation requires you to report the correlation coefficient.

Arthroscopy encourages the use of validated outcome instruments. The use of both a general health outcome measure and a joint-specific, limb-specific, or condition-specific measure is encouraged. If an outcome instrument leads to a categorical ranking (e.g., excellent or good or poor), the aggregate outcome score for each patient should be provided.

4. Results

Describe in detail the data obtained during the study following the order of the Methods to include final number of subjects, demographics, length of follow-up (mean and range). The overall final patient follow-up should be 80% or greater (less than 20% drop-out) in order to minimize follow-up bias. In general, scientific studies will not be accepted for publication without meeting this criterion. Results obtained with less than two years of follow-up are rarely accepted for publication by the Journal. All data in the text must be consistent with the rest of the manuscript, including data in tables, figures, and legends. Present comparison data in tables and present as mean ± standard error of the mean with confidence intervals.

5. Discussion

Be concise. The Discussion should start with the most important findings of your study. Is your hypothesis affirmed or refuted? Compare and contrast your study with others in the most relevant world literature, particularly the recent literature. A complete literature review is unnecessary.

At the end of the Discussion, under the subheading "Limitations," review the limitations of your study.

6. Conclusions

Briefly state your new (or verified) view of the problem you outlined in the Introduction. Take special care to draw your conclusions only from your results and verify that your conclusions are firmly supported by your data. Most importantly, do not make concluding statements that are not supported by your data, lie beyond the scope of your study, or are unnecessary (e.g., "further studies are warranted"). The conclusions in the text must match those in the abstract.

7. References

The Journal follows the reference style in "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (see Provide all authors' names when 6 or fewer; when 7 or more, list the first 3 and add et al. Provide article titles and inclusive page numbers (321-328, not 321-8). References to online-only material must list author, title, the URL, and the date accessed by the author. For abbreviations of journal names, refer to PubMed. Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is present in the reference list (and vice versa). The accuracy of reference data is the responsibility of all authors.

Data References
This journal encourages you to cite underlying or relevant datasets in your manuscript by citing them in your text and including a data reference in your Reference List. Data references should include the following elements: author name(s), dataset title, data repository, version (where available), year, and global persistent identifier. Add [dataset] immediately before the reference so we can properly identify it as a data reference. This identifier will not appear in your published article.

Reference style
In text: Number references in the order in which they appear in the text. Unpublished results and personal communications (only if essential to your message) should be mentioned in the body of the text at the end the statement with the appropriate information in parentheses. For example: (J. Karlsson, M.D., personal communication, [month and year of communication]).

Formatting Examples

Jackson TJ, Lindner D, El-Bitar YF, Domb BG. Effect of femoral anteversion on clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2015;31:35-41.

Chapter in a book
Ruch DS, Poehling GG. Operative arthroscopy of the wrist. In: Andrews JR, Timmerman LA, eds. Diagnostic and operative arthroscopy. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1997;199-205.

Burkhart SS, Lo IKY, Brady PC, Denard PJ. The cowboy's companion: A trail guide for the arthroscopic shoulder surgeon. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams, 2012.

Article in Press
Note: Citation of an 'in press' article is permitted only if it has been accepted for publication.
Rosso F, Bisicchia S, Bonasia DE, Amendola A. Meniscal allograft transplantation: A systematic review. Am J Sports Med in press, available online 13 June, 2014. doi:10.1177/0363546514536021.

[dataset] Oguro, M, Imahiro, S, Saito, S, Nakashizuka, T. Mortality data for Japanese oak wilt disease and surrounding forest compositions, Mendeley Data, v1; 2015.

For further detail and examples you are referred to the AMA Manual of Style.

8. Figure and Video Legends

Ensure that each illustration and each part of a multipart illustration has a legend (caption). Supply legends separately, not attached to the figure. Figure legends must be robust and "stand alone" (i.e., contain a complete, take-home, educational message, as if a reader viewed only that Figure without looking at any other Figure or without reading the text). Orient the reader to the image by mentioning patient position, side, and viewing portal or MRI orientation as appropriate. Keep text in the illustrations themselves to a minimum but explain in the legend all symbols and abbreviations used.

9. Tables

Number tables consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Include a short descriptive title with the table number. Place footnotes to tables below the table body and indicate them according to the symbol hierarchy (i.e., asterisk, dagger, double dagger, etc.). Define all abbreviations. Avoid vertical rules. Do not give the same information in tables that you give in the text or in figures.

10. Figures

Number figures consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Figures must be submitted separately from the text. Arrows and labels should be added to figures as appropriate to orient the reader to the arthroscopic images. Previously published figures may be used if permission has been received from the source publisher.

11. Disclosures
After the figures, you will upload each author's completed Arthroscopy ICMJE form. These forms must be completed, signed, and submitted with the manuscript.


Refer to Harris JD, Brand JC, Cote MP, Dhawan A; Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics of Perils of Pooling: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic reviews; Arthroscopy 2017; E-published April 27, 2017 for guidance in design, conduct, reporting, and publishing SR/MA in Arthroscopy.


Review authors are encouraged, but not required, to register the systematic review (SR) on PROSPERO ( after the review topic is conceived, but before the conduct of the review begins. Submission of a SR should follow the 27-item PRISMA checklist ( The following guidelines incorporate key elements of the PRISMA checklist and are intended to improve the quality of SR submissions:

  • Rationale for why a SR is needed should be clearly described. What is already known about the topic, current gaps in knowledge, and why a SR is likely to produce evidence that will serve to address these gaps should be clearly stated. If a similar or identical SR/MA has been published in last 5 to 10 years, then the submitted SR/MA must show that the evidence has changed.
  • Define the specific research question, preferably in PICO format (Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, and Outcomes).
    o Example: In collision athletes, does open Bankart repair, in comparison to arthroscopic Bankart repair, result in lower rates of recurrent instability?


Study Eligibility (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria)
  • Eligibility criteria should follow the PICO question defined in the Introduction.
    o Example:Studies that included collision athletes with a Bankart lesion undergoing primary repair, compared open to arthroscopic treatment, and reported recurrent instability rates at two years or greater follow up were eligible for inclusion.
  • Other pertinent criteria for determining eligibility including type of studies (Level of Evidence, study design, etc.) that was reviewed.
    o Example:Case series (Level IV evidence) or studies that did not specifically compare open to arthroscopic treatment were excluded.
    o Consult CEBM ( for thorough descriptions of level of evidence in therapeutic, diagnostic, prognostic, and economic studies.

Literature Search
  • The search strategy (terms, string) should be described with enough detail that it could be reproduced.
  • Indicate which databases were searched. Two or more databases should be used (the combination of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane will capture 97% of all relevant studies in Orthopedic Surgery SR/MA).
  • The search should be performed independently by two or more study authors to ensure no omission of potentially relevant subjects and resolution of disagreement in the setting of possible study inclusion.

Study Selection and Data Abstraction
  • The process for selecting studies, indicating who screened the studies and how were disagreements managed should be clearly described.
  • The specific data that were extracted from each study and information on who abstracted the data, what tools (data collections forms, etc.) were used to facilitate abstraction, and how were disagreements managed should be described.

Risk of Bias Assessment
  • The process used to appraise the methodological quality or risk of bias including the tools use for appraisal should be clearly described.
  • The tools used to evaluate the studies should be appropriate for the design of the included studies. Common tools include Cochrane’s Risk of Bias for randomized clinical trials, Coleman, Modified Coleman, CONSORT, Newcastle-Ottawa or MINORS for observational non-randomized studies.
  • Multiple, independent raters for the risk of bias assessment are recommended. Rater statistics (kappa, ICC) should be reported to quantify the degree agreement between the raters and a description of how disagreements were handled, i.e. how the final score was arrived at, should be included.

Data Analysis
  • The primary outcome measure(s) should be clearly stated.
    o Example: The primary outcome measure was the rate of recurrent instability. Risk ratios (rate in open group divided by the rate in arthroscopic) were calculated for each study.
  • If a meta-analysis is performed, the rationale or criteria used for determining that pooling data was appropriate should be provided.
  • In nearly all situations, meta-analysis should only be performed with level I or II evidence studies.
  • The methods used to analyze the data (fixed versus random effects) and measures of heterogeneity or consistency (I2) should be clearly described.
  • For a meta-analysis using a random effect model, prediction intervals are strongly recommended.
  • Plans for exploring heterogeneity or inconsistency between studies, including subgroup analyses and meta-regressions should be clearly described.
  • Any additional analyses (sensitivity, publication bias) should also be clearly described.

  • Presentation of the results should follow the Methods section.
  • The study selection process should be depicted in a PRISMA flow chart.
  • Risk of Bias scores should be presented for each item on the selected tools. Reporting aggregate scores is OK however scores for each item are needed to determine the specific areas where studies were at risk for bias.
  • For SR without a meta-analysis, forest plots with the summary estimate suppressed are recommend as they allow the effects of the individual studies and their relative size and weight to be displayed together in the same figure.

Discussion and Conclusion should follow the Journal’s guidelines for original research.

Common Errors
  • Including studies with duplicate patient populations. In some instances a SR turns up studies on the same patient group. Including these studies in any statistical analysis artificially inflates the number of patients and should be avoided.
  • Pooling diverse, heterogeneous studies with different designs.Combining non-randomized studies with randomized trials is typically not appropriate as these designs carry different risks of bias and are apt to distort the results. If a SR includes studies with different designs (randomize trials, cohort studies, etc.) these should be pooled separately. Typically, these are level III or IV evidence studies.
  • No rationale for provided for pooling non-randomized studies. If the available literature is limited to observational studies, a rationale for why a meta-analysis will produce valid results that contribute to the understanding of the problem under question is needed. If one can not be reached, a meta-analysis should be avoided.
  • Quantifying heterogeneity but not failing to explore or discuss it. Reporting of the I2 statistic has become more frequent however it’s important to discuss its impact on the results. If the results are heterogeneous efforts should be undertaken to explore this inconsistency. Techniques like subgroup analysis can be used to determine if I2 values change when grouped according to co-variants. For example, I2 values may change when the studies are analyzed according to a clinical characteristic (those that included patients with bone loss vs. those that did not) or a risk of bias item (those that adequately randomized patients versus those that did not). Lastly, I2 is a relative measure. As recommended above, providing a prediction interval will assist in interpreting the effect of heterogeneity. A prediction interval provides a range of probable effects that reflects the variation in the different studies and settings, including what would be expected in future patients.


The following checklist will be useful before sending a manuscript to the journal for review. Ensure that the following items are present:

One author has been designated as the corresponding author with the following contact details:
  • E-mail address
  • Full postal address
  • Telephone numbers

All necessary files have been uploaded, and contain:
  • All figure legends
  • All tables (including title, description, footnotes)
  • Separate files for figures
  • ICMJE forms for all authors

Further considerations:
  • Manuscript has been spell-checked and grammar-checked
  • References are in the correct format for Arthroscopy
  • All references included in the reference list are cited in the text, and vice versa
  • Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources, including the Web


This journal encourages and enables you to share data that supports your research publication where appropriate, and enables you to interlink the data with your published articles. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. To facilitate reproducibility and data reuse, this journal also encourages you to share your software, code, models, algorithms, protocols, methods and other useful materials related to the project.

Data linking

If you have made your research data available in a data repository, you can link your article directly to the dataset. Elsevier collaborates with a number of repositories to link articles on ScienceDirect with relevant repositories, giving readers access to underlying data that gives them a better understanding of the research described.

When available, you can directly link your dataset to your article by providing the relevant information in the submission system. For more information, visit the database linking page .

For supported data repositories a repository banner will automatically appear next to your published article on ScienceDirect.

In addition, you can link to relevant data or entities through identifiers within the text of your manuscript, using the following format: Database: xxxx (e.g., TAIR: AT1G01020; CCDC: 734053; PDB: 1XFN).

Mendeley Data

This journal supports Mendeley Data, enabling you to deposit any research data (including raw and processed data, video, code, software, algorithms, protocols, and methods) associated with your manuscript in a free-to-use, open access repository. Before submitting your article, you can deposit the relevant datasets to Mendeley Data. Please include the DOI of the deposited dataset(s) in your main manuscript file. The datasets will be listed and directly accessible to readers next to your published article online.

For more information, visit the Mendeley Data for journals page.

Data statement

To foster transparency, we encourage you to state the availability of your data in your submission. This may be a requirement of your funding body or institution.

If your data is unavailable to access or unsuitable to post, you will have the opportunity to indicate why during the submission process. The statement will appear with your published article on ScienceDirect. For more information, visit the Data statement page.

Updated June 2020