Pub Date : 2025-02-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003385
Foster Chen, Richard N Chang, Heather A Prentice, Brian H Fasig, Elizabeth W Paxton, Kevin T Hug, Matthew P Kelly
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Use of cementless TKA has grown after encouraging data from contemporary implants. Yet registry studies have shown inferior survivorship of cementless fixation when treated as a monolithic class aggregating contemporary and historic designs. Two contemporary cementless TKA designs with distantly different fixation strategies have emerged in the last 2 decades, mostly focused on tibial fixation: porous tantalum and twin-peg tibia and, more recently, porous titanium and a spikes-and-keel tibia. However, their survivorship in comparison with cemented options and between each other remains to be thoroughly delineated.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Is there a difference in aseptic survivorship between cementless twin-peg TKA constructs compared with cemented options? (2) Is there a difference in aseptic survivorship between cementless spikes-and-keel TKA constructs compared with cemented options? (3) Is there a difference in aseptic survivorship between cementless twin-peg TKA constructs compared with cementless spikes-and-keel TKA constructs?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry (TJRR). The TJRR prospectively collects patient, perioperative, and implant details on all patients who undergo TKA in a multiregional organization with 12 million members; patients included in the TJRR are longitudinally monitored for outcomes after TKA, and identified outcomes are manually validated through chart review. Patients who underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis from 2009 to 2023 with a fully cementless construct of either twin-peg or spikes-and-keel, and their fully cemented options, were included (n = 136,443). TKA with hybrid or unknown fixation (2.6% [3571]), rotating or unknown mobility (0.8% [1081]), or fully constrained or unknown stability (1.1% [1549]) were excluded. The final study sample included 130,242 primary TKAs performed by 388 surgeons at 60 hospitals. Of the 125,414 patients receiving twin-peg TKAs, 9.2% who received cemented and 12.3% who received cementless were lost to follow-up. Of the 4828 patients receiving spikes-and-keel TKAs, 11.3% who received cemented versus 11.2% who received cementless were lost to follow-up. Those who terminated membership during the study period tended to be younger than those who did not (65 versus 68 years for both groups). A comparison between cementless (575 twin-peg and 1574 spikes-and-keel) versus cemented (124,839 twin-peg and 3254 spikes-and-keel) fixation was performed for each pair of analogous implants. For the twin-peg comparison, when comparing the cementless group to the cemented group, the cementless group was younger (61 versus 68 years), included more male patients (77% versus 39%), and more patients who self-reported White race (76% versus 66%). For the spikes-and-keel comparison, when comparing the cementless group to the cemented group, the cementless
{"title":"What Is the Survivorship of TKA With a Twin-peg or Spikes-and-keel Cementless Implant Compared With Cemented? A Registry-based Cohort Study.","authors":"Foster Chen, Richard N Chang, Heather A Prentice, Brian H Fasig, Elizabeth W Paxton, Kevin T Hug, Matthew P Kelly","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003385","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Use of cementless TKA has grown after encouraging data from contemporary implants. Yet registry studies have shown inferior survivorship of cementless fixation when treated as a monolithic class aggregating contemporary and historic designs. Two contemporary cementless TKA designs with distantly different fixation strategies have emerged in the last 2 decades, mostly focused on tibial fixation: porous tantalum and twin-peg tibia and, more recently, porous titanium and a spikes-and-keel tibia. However, their survivorship in comparison with cemented options and between each other remains to be thoroughly delineated.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Is there a difference in aseptic survivorship between cementless twin-peg TKA constructs compared with cemented options? (2) Is there a difference in aseptic survivorship between cementless spikes-and-keel TKA constructs compared with cemented options? (3) Is there a difference in aseptic survivorship between cementless twin-peg TKA constructs compared with cementless spikes-and-keel TKA constructs?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry (TJRR). The TJRR prospectively collects patient, perioperative, and implant details on all patients who undergo TKA in a multiregional organization with 12 million members; patients included in the TJRR are longitudinally monitored for outcomes after TKA, and identified outcomes are manually validated through chart review. Patients who underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis from 2009 to 2023 with a fully cementless construct of either twin-peg or spikes-and-keel, and their fully cemented options, were included (n = 136,443). TKA with hybrid or unknown fixation (2.6% [3571]), rotating or unknown mobility (0.8% [1081]), or fully constrained or unknown stability (1.1% [1549]) were excluded. The final study sample included 130,242 primary TKAs performed by 388 surgeons at 60 hospitals. Of the 125,414 patients receiving twin-peg TKAs, 9.2% who received cemented and 12.3% who received cementless were lost to follow-up. Of the 4828 patients receiving spikes-and-keel TKAs, 11.3% who received cemented versus 11.2% who received cementless were lost to follow-up. Those who terminated membership during the study period tended to be younger than those who did not (65 versus 68 years for both groups). A comparison between cementless (575 twin-peg and 1574 spikes-and-keel) versus cemented (124,839 twin-peg and 3254 spikes-and-keel) fixation was performed for each pair of analogous implants. For the twin-peg comparison, when comparing the cementless group to the cemented group, the cementless group was younger (61 versus 68 years), included more male patients (77% versus 39%), and more patients who self-reported White race (76% versus 66%). For the spikes-and-keel comparison, when comparing the cementless group to the cemented group, the cementless ","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003396
Michael D Ries
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Kinematic Alignment Does Not Result in Clinically Important Improvements After TKA Compared With Mechanical Alignment: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.","authors":"Michael D Ries","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003396","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003412
Wakenda K Tyler
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Does Merit-based Incentive Payment System Performance Differ Based on Orthopaedic Surgeon Gender?","authors":"Wakenda K Tyler","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003412","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003389
George Grammatopoulos
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Hip-Spine Relationship in Femoroacetabular Impingement: Does Hip Arthroscopy Affect Pelvic Mobility?","authors":"George Grammatopoulos","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003389","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003383
Joshua R Porto, Monish S Lavu, Christian J Hecht, Atul F Kamath
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical helmet systems remain widely used in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) despite evidence to suggest that they may increase infection risk via contamination of sterile equipment and operating room air. However, the challenging nature of conducting high-quality clinical trials to study outcomes with low incidence, such as prosthetic joint infection (PJI), has made drawing definitive conclusions from the available experimental studies difficult. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the best available evidence is needed to clarify the association between surgical helmet system use and contamination and infection risk and to provide clinical recommendations for use in TJA.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>This systematic review aimed to address the following questions: (1) What is the level of sterility of surgical helmet systems and concomitantly used personal protective equipment (PPE)? (2) Is there an association between surgical helmet systems and air contamination within the operating room? (3) Does the use of a surgical helmet system affect wound contamination and/or infection?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Medline, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar were queried on July 31, 2024, to identify studies published from inception to July 2024 that have evaluated the impact of surgical helmet system use in TJA on sterile field contamination (operating room air, PPE, sterile equipment), wound contamination and infection, or practices that may impact related outcomes. Inclusion criteria were that the study evaluate the sterility, donning, or intraoperative use (including mock TJA) of a surgical helmet system in association with contamination or infection. The following articles were excluded: case reports, case series, reviews, commentaries, editorials, duplicate studies among databases, gray literature, studies specific to a procedure other than TJA, and studies unavailable as a full-text English manuscript. After screening 536 articles, 21 were included. The 13 studies that evaluated the sterility of surgical helmet systems and concomitantly used PPE comprised 126 gowning simulations, 445 mock TJA procedures, and 191 patients who had undergone TJA. The seven studies that evaluated contamination of operating room air comprised 38 gowning simulations, 82 mock TJA procedures, and 96 patients who had undergone TJA. Three studies directly evaluated wound contamination or infection, comprising 83,888 patients who had undergone TJA. Risk of bias was determined via the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool, with a mean ± SD score of 20 ± 1.4 (of 24) for comparative studies and 14 ± 0.8 (of 16) for noncomparative studies, indicating good study quality. Notably, the quality of evidence was limited by the inclusion of experimental study designs that did not directly measure infection; however, the inclusion of such studies is necessitated by the infeasibly large study population require
{"title":"Is Your Surgical Helmet System Compromising the Sterile Field? A Systematic Review of Contamination Risks and Preventive Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty.","authors":"Joshua R Porto, Monish S Lavu, Christian J Hecht, Atul F Kamath","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003383","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical helmet systems remain widely used in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) despite evidence to suggest that they may increase infection risk via contamination of sterile equipment and operating room air. However, the challenging nature of conducting high-quality clinical trials to study outcomes with low incidence, such as prosthetic joint infection (PJI), has made drawing definitive conclusions from the available experimental studies difficult. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the best available evidence is needed to clarify the association between surgical helmet system use and contamination and infection risk and to provide clinical recommendations for use in TJA.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>This systematic review aimed to address the following questions: (1) What is the level of sterility of surgical helmet systems and concomitantly used personal protective equipment (PPE)? (2) Is there an association between surgical helmet systems and air contamination within the operating room? (3) Does the use of a surgical helmet system affect wound contamination and/or infection?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Medline, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar were queried on July 31, 2024, to identify studies published from inception to July 2024 that have evaluated the impact of surgical helmet system use in TJA on sterile field contamination (operating room air, PPE, sterile equipment), wound contamination and infection, or practices that may impact related outcomes. Inclusion criteria were that the study evaluate the sterility, donning, or intraoperative use (including mock TJA) of a surgical helmet system in association with contamination or infection. The following articles were excluded: case reports, case series, reviews, commentaries, editorials, duplicate studies among databases, gray literature, studies specific to a procedure other than TJA, and studies unavailable as a full-text English manuscript. After screening 536 articles, 21 were included. The 13 studies that evaluated the sterility of surgical helmet systems and concomitantly used PPE comprised 126 gowning simulations, 445 mock TJA procedures, and 191 patients who had undergone TJA. The seven studies that evaluated contamination of operating room air comprised 38 gowning simulations, 82 mock TJA procedures, and 96 patients who had undergone TJA. Three studies directly evaluated wound contamination or infection, comprising 83,888 patients who had undergone TJA. Risk of bias was determined via the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool, with a mean ± SD score of 20 ± 1.4 (of 24) for comparative studies and 14 ± 0.8 (of 16) for noncomparative studies, indicating good study quality. Notably, the quality of evidence was limited by the inclusion of experimental study designs that did not directly measure infection; however, the inclusion of such studies is necessitated by the infeasibly large study population require","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-04DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003397
Stuart A Green
{"title":"Art in Science: Molding Deformities, Then and Now.","authors":"Stuart A Green","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003397","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-04DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003373
Lisa A Royse, Dinara Saparova, Melanie E Boeyer, Daniel G Hoernschemeyer
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common spinal deformity among children. Although posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is a commonly used treatment for curves ≥ 45°, anterior vertebral body tethering (VBT) has recently gained traction as an alternative for some patients. Surgeons have established radiographic definitions of success for PSF, with similar efforts underway for VBT. However, these definitions may not align with patient perceptions of success or their satisfaction with achieved outcomes.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>To enhance patient-centered care and inform subsequent comparative effectiveness research, we asked: (1) How do patients who have undergone VBT or PSF define and perceive treatment success ≥ 3 years after surgery? (2) What are patients' perceptions of their outcomes, specifically regarding satisfaction with symptom relief, side effects, physical function, and physical appearance?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using an approach informed by concepts from phenomenology to capture patients' lived experiences, we conducted semistructured interviews using an interview guide. Inclusion criteria required patients to have (1) progressive AIS with moderate deformity (< 60°) at surgery, (2) undergone VBT or PSF with at least 3 years of follow-up, and (3) reached full skeletal maturity. Patients unable to communicate or schedule interviews were excluded. From 96 eligible patients (VBT n = 47, PSF n = 49), we recruited 40 (20 per cohort). The sample size was guided by qualitative studies in the field and aimed to achieve saturation, defined as the point at which minimal new information and no new coding categories were identified. Participants were treated at a single urban Midwest hospital by the same physician. The VBT cohort (median age 18 years [range 16 to 22]) was 85% women/girls, while the PSF cohort (median age 21 years [range 18 to 27]) was 70% women. Interviews were analyzed using a collaborative content analysis approach in which two researchers independently identified key ideas, assigned codes, and resolved discrepancies through consensus to develop themes and subthemes aligned with the research questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients from both cohorts defined success as achieving pain relief, maintaining physical function, improving appearance, ensuring long-term deformity correction, and alleviating concerns about future health risks. Patient priorities varied; some prioritized flexibility to swim competitively or play musical instruments, while others prioritized pain-free living or improved physical appearance. Overall, both groups expressed satisfaction with symptom relief, physical function, and appearance improvements despite ongoing pain, side effects, and physical limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings may be used as a guide for preoperative counseling and highlight the importance of incorporating patient perspectives int
{"title":"How Do Patients Perceive Success and Satisfaction After Vertebral Body Tethering and Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis? A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Lisa A Royse, Dinara Saparova, Melanie E Boeyer, Daniel G Hoernschemeyer","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003373","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common spinal deformity among children. Although posterior spinal fusion (PSF) is a commonly used treatment for curves ≥ 45°, anterior vertebral body tethering (VBT) has recently gained traction as an alternative for some patients. Surgeons have established radiographic definitions of success for PSF, with similar efforts underway for VBT. However, these definitions may not align with patient perceptions of success or their satisfaction with achieved outcomes.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>To enhance patient-centered care and inform subsequent comparative effectiveness research, we asked: (1) How do patients who have undergone VBT or PSF define and perceive treatment success ≥ 3 years after surgery? (2) What are patients' perceptions of their outcomes, specifically regarding satisfaction with symptom relief, side effects, physical function, and physical appearance?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using an approach informed by concepts from phenomenology to capture patients' lived experiences, we conducted semistructured interviews using an interview guide. Inclusion criteria required patients to have (1) progressive AIS with moderate deformity (< 60°) at surgery, (2) undergone VBT or PSF with at least 3 years of follow-up, and (3) reached full skeletal maturity. Patients unable to communicate or schedule interviews were excluded. From 96 eligible patients (VBT n = 47, PSF n = 49), we recruited 40 (20 per cohort). The sample size was guided by qualitative studies in the field and aimed to achieve saturation, defined as the point at which minimal new information and no new coding categories were identified. Participants were treated at a single urban Midwest hospital by the same physician. The VBT cohort (median age 18 years [range 16 to 22]) was 85% women/girls, while the PSF cohort (median age 21 years [range 18 to 27]) was 70% women. Interviews were analyzed using a collaborative content analysis approach in which two researchers independently identified key ideas, assigned codes, and resolved discrepancies through consensus to develop themes and subthemes aligned with the research questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients from both cohorts defined success as achieving pain relief, maintaining physical function, improving appearance, ensuring long-term deformity correction, and alleviating concerns about future health risks. Patient priorities varied; some prioritized flexibility to swim competitively or play musical instruments, while others prioritized pain-free living or improved physical appearance. Overall, both groups expressed satisfaction with symptom relief, physical function, and appearance improvements despite ongoing pain, side effects, and physical limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings may be used as a guide for preoperative counseling and highlight the importance of incorporating patient perspectives int","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-04DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003401
Conor F McCarthy
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Does Resilience Change in Patients Undergoing Shoulder Surgery? A Retrospective Comparative Study Utilizing the Brief Resilience Scale.","authors":"Conor F McCarthy","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003401","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143188063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-04DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003388
David S Jevsevar
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Contralateral THAs More Than 1 Year Apart: Do PROMs and Healthcare Utilization Differ After Each Procedure?","authors":"David S Jevsevar","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003388","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143363750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-02-04DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003399
David Ring, Seth S Leopold
{"title":"Editorial: The Goal is Health, Not Surgery.","authors":"David Ring, Seth S Leopold","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003399","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143188131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：