Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume最新文献

Background: Telehealth visits (THVs) have made it essential to adopt innovative ways to evaluate patients virtually. This study validates a novel THV approach that uses educational videos and an instructional datasheet, enabling parents to use smartphones to measure their child's scoliosis at home or in telehealth settings.

Methods: We identified a prospective cohort of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) scheduled for follow-up care from March to July 2021. The angle of trunk rotation (ATR) was first measured at home by patients' guardians using instructional video guidance and a smartphone application with internal accelerometer software. The second measurement was made during a THV examination performed by caregivers with supervision by trained associates via a telehealth appointment. Lastly, the clinician measured the child's ATR during an in-person clinic visit. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and interrater reliability were compared between in-person clinic measurements and (1) at-home and (2) THV measurements. Shoulder, lower back, and pelvic asymmetry were observed and quantified at home and virtually, and then were compared with in-person clinic evaluations using kappa values. Surveys were used to evaluate the experience of the patient/caregiver with the at-home and telehealth assessment tools.

Results: Seventy-three patients were included (mean age, 14.1 years; 25% male). There was excellent agreement in the ATR measurements between THVs and in-person visits (ICC = 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 0.92). ATR agreement between at-home and in-person visits was also excellent, but slightly diminished (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.83). Agreement between THV and in-person measurements was significantly higher compared with that between at-home and in-person measurements (p = 0.04). There was poor agreement in lower back asymmetry between THV and in-person assessments (kappa = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.60); however, there was no significant agreement between at-home and in-person assessments (kappa = 0.06; 95% CI = -0.17 to 0.29). Patient/caregiver satisfaction surveys (n = 70) reported a median score of 4 ("good") for comfort with use of the technology, and a score of 3 ("neutral") for equivalence of THV and in-person evaluation.

Conclusions: There was a high level of agreement between telehealth and in-person spine measurements, suggesting that THVs may be reliably used to evaluate AIS, thus improving access to specialized care.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract: Disruptive physician behavior has become a common problem in medicine. Individuals who conduct themselves in a manner that could negatively affect patient care, or "disruptive physicians," frequently cause stress for patients and staff, are a headache for leadership, and can require expensive remediation. We suggest that rather than "bad apples," many disruptive physicians are the fruit of a "toxic tree." That is, many physicians only become disruptive as a response to their environment. It is important for leaders to accurately identify the root causes of disruptive behavior in order to address the problem. In general, it is important for leaders to act prospectively, to examine events from all perspectives, to promote wellness and communication, and to identify external or systemic causes. We also discuss additional considerations for when the physician who has been labeled "disruptive" is a member of an underrepresented group (in orthopaedic surgery, the underrepresented groups are women and racial minorities). As a conclusion, we offer a case example of how 1 institution established a system of physician wellness to enhance prevention efforts.

Background: Recent evidence showing that computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with better outcomes compared with conventional TKA for patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis has not been included in economic evaluations of computer-assisted TKA, which are needed to support coverage decisions. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted TKA from a payer's perspective, incorporating recent evidence.

Methods: We compared computer-assisted TKA with conventional TKA with regard to costs (in 2022 U.S. dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using Markov models for elderly patients (≥65 years of age) and patients who were not elderly (55 to 64 years of age). Costs and QALYs were estimated in the lifetime for elderly patients and in the short term for patients who were not elderly, under a bundled payment program and a Fee-for-Service program. Transition probabilities, costs, and QALYs were retrieved from the literature, a national knee arthroplasty registry, and the National Center for Health Statistics. Threshold and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of key estimates used in the base-case analysis. Using projected estimates of TKA utilization, the total cost savings of performing computer-assisted TKA rather than conventional TKA were estimated.

Results: Compared with conventional TKA, computer-assisted TKA was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs for both elderly patients and patients who were not elderly, regardless of payment programs, making computer-assisted TKA a favorable treatment option. Widespread adoption of computer-assisted TKA in all U.S. patients would result in an estimated total cost saving of $1 billion for payers.

Conclusions: Compared with conventional TKA, computer-assisted TKA reduces costs to payers while providing favorable outcomes. Payers may consider providing additional payment incentives to providers for performing computer-assisted TKA, to achieve outcome improvement and cost control by facilitating widespread adoption of computer-assisted TKA.

Level of evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract: Sex and gender are distinct terms that must be used correctly. Data regarding sex and gender may be collected using a 2-step method that separates biological sex and self-reported gender identity. The PhenX Toolkit, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is one tool that provides investigators with recommended standard data-collection protocols. Another tool is the Diversity Minimal Item Set questionnaire. Importantly, sex and gender interact: for example, pain has both biological aspects (sex differences in electrical, ischemic, thermal, pressure, and muscle pain sensitivity) and cultural aspects (gender factors in how people report pain and how physicians understand and treat pain in patients). Gender norms, identity, and relations all impact patient care. Gender norms, for instance, may influence how a person experiences pain, gender identity may influence a person's willingness to report pain, and gender relations may influence a physician's gendered expectations in relation to a patient's gendered behaviors. Clinicians may perceive women's pain to be psychological; as a result, women may receive more nonspecific diagnoses, wait longer for treatment, and receive more antidepressants and fewer analgesics than men. Research on gender-diverse people and pain is just now emerging. Resources for methods of reporting include The Lancet, Nature, and the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines. We must consider all relevant factors intersecting with sex and gender, including age, disabilities, educational background, ethnicity, family configuration, geographic location, race, sexuality, social and economic status, sustainability, and more.

Abstract: In orthopaedic clinical research, as in other fields, sex and gender-specific analyses are not consistently performed, despite evidence of sex differences in outcomes. Both institutional review boards (IRBs) and journal editors have a role in impacting the rate at which such analyses are performed and reported. The authority, responsibilities, and potential actions of IRBs are discussed herein, with the aim of setting investigator expectations and propelling changes to the study plan before the research is initiated.

Background: Porous metaphyseal cones are frequently utilized during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate 3D-printed metaphyseal cones used for revision TKA, with specific emphasis on implant survivorship, radiographic appearance, and clinical outcomes after short-term follow-up.

Methods: We identified 740 cones (498 tibial, 242 femoral) that had been inserted during 533 revision TKA procedures that had been performed at a single tertiary care academic institution. Aseptic loosening (n = 199), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 183), and instability (n = 84) were the most common reasons for the index revision. Type-2B or 3 bone loss was present in 67% of the knees. The mean age was 66 years, the mean body mass index was 34 kg/m 2 , and 55% of the patients were female. Serial radiographs were reviewed. The mean duration of follow-up was 4 years.

Results: The 5-year cumulative incidence of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 3%). The 5-year cumulative incidence of any cone revision or removal was 6% (95% CI, 4% to 9%). In total, 37 cones (19 femoral, 18 tibial) were revised, with PJI (n = 23; 14 recurrent), periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 3), arthrofibrosis (n = 3), and aseptic loosening of the femoral component and femoral cone (n = 3) as the most common reasons for cone revision. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any TKA re-revision was 14% (95% CI, 11% to 18%). There were a total of 67 re-revisions, with PJI (n = 38), persistent drainage (n = 6), and extensor mechanism disruption (n = 3) being the most common reasons. Radiographically, 2 unrevised femoral cones and 1 unrevised tibial cone appeared to be possibly loose; all 3 cones were in knees with distal femoral replacements or hinged constructs.

Conclusions: This large series showed that 3D-printed titanium metaphyseal cones were very durable at short-term follow-up, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. PJI was the most common reason for cone revision and any revision.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Previous studies comparing reoperation risk between integrated dual lag screw (IDL) and single lag component (SL) cephalomedullary nails (CMNs) in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures have demonstrated mixed results. The purpose of this study was to assess the rates of reoperation for fixation failure and all-cause reoperation in a large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with an intertrochanteric fracture treated with an IDL or SL CMN. We hypothesized that there would be no difference between the groups with respect to either of the reoperation rates.

Methods: Adults (≥18 years old) who sustained an intertrochanteric fracture (AO/OTA 31A1 to 31A3) treated with an IDL or SL CMN between January 2014 and May 2021 at 1 of 13 Level-I trauma centers were included. Patients with <3 months of follow-up or pathologic fractures were excluded. Rates of reoperation were compared with use of the chi-square test and multivariable regression, controlling for age, gender, injury mechanism, fracture pattern, and postoperative neck-shaft angle.

Results: A total of 2,130 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 78 years, and 62.5% of patients were female. The cohort consisted of 287 patients (13.5%) with an IDL CMN and 1,843 patients (86.5%) with an SL CMN. A total of 99 patients (4.6%) had a reoperation of any type, of whom 29 (1.4% of all patients) had a reoperation for fixation failure. Compared with patients with an SL CMN, those with an IDL CMN had higher rates (4.2% versus 0.9%; p < 0.001) and odds (odds ratio [OR], 4.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.29 to 10.69]; p < 0.001) of reoperation for fixation failure as well as higher rates (7.3% versus 4.2%; p = 0.021) and odds (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.10 to 3.06]; p = 0.021) of all-cause reoperation.

Conclusions: Intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with an IDL CMN were associated with low but significantly higher rates and significantly higher odds of reoperation for fixation failure and all-cause reoperation compared with those treated with an SL CMN. We suggest caution to surgeons in the use of IDL CMNs for high-risk patients and recommend using SL CMNs for most patients with intertrochanteric femoral fractures.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.