JBJS Open Access最新文献

Introduction: The rate of sexual and gender minority (SGM) orthopaedic surgeons is far less than in other specialties, and the field has, in part, had significant difficulty attracting SGM applicants. To provide a more welcoming environment, identifying where applicants experience discrimination along medical training must be of paramount concern. Our objective was to understand the challenges faced by SGM medical students applying into orthopaedic surgery.

Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to applicants of a single orthopaedic residency program in 2023, soliciting demographics, exposure to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) mentors, and experiences with discrimination. Data were stratified by sexual orientation, and univariate analysis was conducted using chi-squared tests. Afterward, logistic regressions adjusted for gender, age, and race were performed.

Results: The overall response rate was 15.4% (n = 136/881). Fifteen percent (n = 20/135) identified as LGBTQ. Sixty-one percent of LGBTQ-identifying applicants experienced slurs and/or hurtful comments during orthopaedic rotations and research experiences, compared with 28% of their heterosexual peers (p < 0.001). In adjusted logistic regression models, LGBTQ respondents were 3.8 times more likely to report experiencing a hostile environment during training (p = 0.04) and 4.9 times more likely to have reported facing discrimination (p = 0.04) compared with heterosexual participants. Approximately 58% of respondents reported never having interacted with an LGBTQ-identifying orthopaedic attending, with only 5% reporting frequent interaction.

Conclusion: LGBTQ-identifying orthopaedic surgery applicants experience barriers related to their sexual identity, including derogatory comments, hostile clinical environments, and lack of LGBTQ mentorship. These findings highlight challenges inherent to the residency application process that may disproportionately affect persons from sexual minority groups. The recognition of such challenges can help to optimize the establishment of informed policies regarding mistreatment and practices regarding diversity and inclusion.

Introduction: Private equity (PE) investment in health care has increased more than 250% between 2010 and 2020. This is mirrored by an increasing number of published materials in medical journals. The objective of our study was to identify and characterize trends and key themes seen within publications discussing the topic of PE investment into orthopaedic surgery practices and bias within those publications.

Methods: The inclusion criteria for our study required an article to be published between the years 2003 and June 2024 and to contain the phrase "orthopaedic surgery" or "orthopedics" in addition to "PE" or "PE investment." Based on these parameters, 15 articles met the criteria for inclusion. Articles were then evaluated to assess various themes related to general views expressed regarding PE firms, reasons for PE attraction to orthopaedics, and most cited positives/negatives of PE investment and potential conflicts of interest with respect to underlying relationships/associations with PE firms at the time of publication.

Results: Of the 15 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, 4 (26.7%) expressed positive views on the topic of PE ownership of orthopaedic practices, while 4 (26.7%) expressed a neutral view and 7 (46.7%) expressed a negative outlook. Four (26.7%) of the articles had authors who were either employed or had ownership in a practice that was purchased by a PE firm. Of these 4 articles, none disclosed this potential conflict of interest. Three of the 4 articles had either a positive or neutral view of PE. The most cited reason for PE attraction to orthopaedics was revenue from ancillary services. The most cited upside of PE transactions was the possibility of benefiting from economies of scale, while the most cited downside was the misalignment of incentives.

Conclusion: The plurality of present studies views PE transactions negatively (46.7%). Our research unveiled 4 studies with undisclosed conflicts of interest (26.7%). In addition, orthopaedic surgeons should be wary of the numerous downsides of PE transactions, such as the misaligned incentives between themselves and PE firms.

Clinical relevance: Independent orthopaedic practices should be critical of the literature when evaluating the merits of potential partnerships with PE firms.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate DO orthopaedic surgery residents compared with their MD counterparts in traditionally allopathic programs, assessing research productivity, number of departmental DO faculty and alumni, and geographical ties to the residency program.

Methods: The Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used to retrospectively identify traditionally allopathic ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs for the 2023 to 2024 year. Residency program websites Scopus, PubMed, and Doximity were used to collect data.

Results: A total of 150 orthopedic surgery residency programs were identified, with 3,712 residents. Of these residents, 58 (1.6%) were DOs and 3,654 (98.4%) were MDs. MDs had a median H-index of 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-4) and median 4 publications (IQR 2-10), whereas DOs had a median H-index of 0 (IQR 0-1) and median 1 publication (IQR 1-3). Sixty-one programs (40%) had DO faculty (138), with 65% (38) matching at a program with ≥1 DO faculty member (20 programs; 13.3%).

Conclusions: Despite a unified accreditation system, this study demonstrates that orthopaedic surgery continues to favor allopathic applicants, with 1.6% of traditionally allopathic program residents being DOs. The presence of DO faculty, alumni, or residents in a program does not significantly impact DO match rates, emphasizing the multifactorial nature of resident selection. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing selection biases and promoting equity in orthopaedic surgery resident selection.

Background: The use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) and antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is the accepted practice to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA). However, practice varies internationally. This study's primary aim was to compare the risk of PJI revision after pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs. plain bone cement (PBC) + SAP, and the secondary aim was to assess whether the risk of PJI revision varies with the number of SAP doses.

Methods: Cohort of 289,926 pTKAs for osteoarthritis from arthroplasty registries in Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, and United States registered from 2010 to 2020. One-year revision for PJI following pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs. PBC + SAP, and single vs. multiple SAP doses was compared. We computed cumulative percent revision (1 minus Kaplan-Meier) using distributed analysis method and adjusted hazard rate ratios (HRRs) using Cox regression analyses within each registry. Advanced distributed meta-analysis was performed to summarize HRRs from all countries.

Results: Among all pTKAs, 64.4% were performed with ALBC + SAP. Each registry reported a 1-year cumulative percent revision for PJI of <1.00% for both pTKAs with ALBC + SAP (0.34%-0.80%) and with PBC + SAP (0.54%-0.69%). The distributed meta-analysis showed HRR = 1.21; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.87) for ALBC + SAP compared with PBC + SAP. Similar risk of PJI revision was observed between pTKAs with ALBC + single vs. multiple doses of SAP: 2 doses (0.95; 95% CI, 0.68-1.33), 3 doses (1.09; 95% CI, 0.64-1.87), and 4 doses (1.23; 95% CI, 0.69-2.21). Comparable results were found for the PBC + SAP group except for higher risk of PJI revision with 4 doses of SAP (2.74; 95% CI, 1.11-6.75).

Conclusions: ALBC and PBC entailed similar risk of PJI revision when patients received SAP in pTKA, regardless of number of SAP doses. ALBC or PBC used in combination with SAP in pTKAs, with one single preoperative dose of SAP may be sufficient without compromising the patient safety.

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

Introduction: Medical school curricula offer limited exposure to orthopaedic surgery, and few national initiatives aim to prepare students for orthopaedic surgery subinternships, which are critical for success in matching into orthopaedic residency. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a single-day virtual "Subinternship Summit" for medical students in 2 key areas: 1) enhancing participants' confidence in their preparedness for orthopaedic subinternship rotations and 2) mitigating any disparities based on student characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, gender, or whether or not the student's school is affiliated with a "home" orthopaedic program.

Methods: In March 2024, a single-day national virtual summit was held, featuring panels on topics relevant to performance during orthopaedic subinternships. The panelists included senior medical students, orthopaedic residents, and attending orthopaedic surgeons from across the United States. Surveys were administered to participants through Qualtrics before and after the summit to collect demographic data and to assess confidence in 6 domains of subinternship performance using 5-point Likert-scale items: overall preparedness, on-call responsibilities, "soft skills," role in the operating room, role in the outpatient clinic, and understanding of resources. Our analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t tests, and multivariable linear regression. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: Of 787 medical students who registered for summit, 426 attended, of whom 180 (42%) completed both the presummit and postsummit surveys. Before the summit, students reported low confidence in all domains, with 5 of 6 domains averaging less than moderate (3/5 points). Multivariable analysis revealed no differences in presummit confidence across various demographic characteristics. After the summit, all 6 domains showed significant increases in confidence, with the lowest average being 4/5 (all, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: This virtual summit effectively increased medical students' confidence in their preparedness and knowledge about orthopaedic surgery subinternships. Given the weight of subinternship performance in the match process, such an initiative may have the potential to increase medical students' success in residency applications.

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

Introduction: Orthopaedic surgery has the greatest degree of gender disparity among all medical specialties, presenting a little-explored opportunity to recruit women into orthopaedics early in the pipeline, particularly as undergraduate students. This study aimed to characterize the opinions of female premedical students regarding orthopaedic surgery as well as to assess the effectiveness of a virtual intervention in increasing interest in or improving attitudes toward the field.

Methods: In this prospective study, recruitment emails were sent to premedical advisors, who then circulated a survey that solicited responses from female-identifying premedical students. The survey consisted of questions about demographics, Likert scale questions about opinions of orthopaedic surgery, and an open-response section. At the end of the survey, respondents were provided the option to register for a Zoom panel, in which 4 female physicians described their experiences as women in orthopaedic surgery. Survey responses were analyzed using unpaired t tests for continuous variables and analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc analysis for Likert scale responses.

Results: A total of 259 female premedical students completed the survey. Respondents most strongly agreed with the statements "orthopaedics is a male-dominated field" and "I wish I learned more about orthopaedics in college." Interest in pursuing orthopaedic surgery was greater among respondents who had undergone orthopaedic surgery, personally knew an orthopaedic surgeon, personally knew a female orthopaedic surgeon, or had shadowed in orthopaedic surgery. After attending the panel, attendees' interest in orthopaedic surgery significantly increased (p < 0.001), and attendees disagreed significantly more strongly with the notion that gender would limit their opportunities in orthopaedics (p = 0.013).

Conclusion: Early exposure to orthopaedic surgery was consistently associated with increased interest among respondents. In addition, exposure to female orthopaedic surgeons was associated with more positive opinions of orthopaedics, and the mentorship intervention proved effective at increasing interest in the field. These results reinforce the need for targeted, early-exposure programs to recruit premedical women into orthopaedic surgery.

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

Background: Microsurgical emergency revascularization surgery for traumatic upper-extremity amputations demands high resource use. Injury details and patient characteristics influence the decision of whether to revascularize or revise an amputation involving the upper extremity. Our aim was to study associations between those factors and unsuccessful revascularization to provide information for clinical decision-making regarding amputation injuries.

Methods: We studied all consecutive patients who had undergone an upper-extremity revascularization at Tampere University Hospital between 2009 and 2019. The primary outcome was the technical success or failure of the operation, which was defined as the survival or non-survival of the amputated tissue. Using logistic regression, we analyzed prognostic factors including age, sex, smoking status, diabetes mellitus, injury mechanism (cut, crush, or avulsion), extent of tissue loss before treatment (number of lost joints), and amputation type (total or subtotal).

Results: A total of 282 patients (mean age, 47 years; 14% female; mostly White Caucasian) were included. The proportion of successful revascularizations (survival of all reconstructed tissue) was 76% (214 of 282). An avulsion injury mechanism (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 14.2), crush injury mechanism (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.0]), and total amputation type (aOR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.8) were the prognostic factors that were associated with the highest risk of unsuccessful revascularizations. We found an S-shaped, nonlinear association between patient age and unsuccessful revascularizations and a U-shaped, nonlinear association between the amount of tissue loss before treatment and unsuccessful revascularizations. There was no evidence of an association between unsuccessful revascularizations and patient sex, smoking, or diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions: Injury details were the most significant prognostic factors of an unsuccessful upper-extremity revascularization, while age was the only patient characteristic that was associated with this outcome. In particular, total amputation type and avulsion and crush injury mechanisms yielded a higher risk of unsuccessful revascularization. We recommend considering this information when making decisions regarding the treatment of upper-extremity amputation injuries.

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

Background: Orthopaedic sports medicine is among the most popular subspecialties. Understanding the trends in sports medicine research over time can offer insight into progress and innovation within the field. The purpose of this study was to assess both the quality of the current literature and trends in gender diversity and inclusion by evaluating publishing characteristics of sports medicine studies in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume (JBJS-A) from 2007 to 2021.

Methods: Sports medicine studies in JBJS-A from 2007 to 2021 were identified using JBJS subspeciality tags for "sports medicine" articles and organized by study type, number of authors, sex of the authors, academic degree(s) of the first and last authors, level of evidence, country of publication, citations, and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROM).

Results: A total of 784 studies were reviewed, and 513 met inclusion criteria. Clinical therapeutic studies were the most common publication (48%). There was an increase in the publication of clinical prognostic studies (17%-25%, p = 0.037) and a significant increase in the use of PROM measures over time (13%-47%, p < 0.001). The total number of authors increased over the study period (4.8-6.3), but there was no significant increase in female authorship. Only 15% of the 784 studies included a female author, with an average of 0.8 female authors per article (range 0-8) compared with 4.6 males (range 1-14).

Conclusion: The significant increase in the use of PROMs in sports medicine studies indicates that the quality of research has improved over the 15-year period. The gender disparity in authorship has remained stagnant. Only 11% of all first authors and 9% of senior authors were female. The number of included international studies improved over time; however, the United States remains the most prolific publisher. Despite these areas of growth, this study suggests that there is room for improvement of authorship gender diversity in orthopaedic sports medicine research.

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

Background: Bone transport in distraction osteogenesis is an effective, well-known procedure. However, bone compression is an aspect of this technique for which there is no objective information. The lack of direct bone compression measurements may result in a lack of uniformity in the bone transport process, which can result in its ineffective application and may be contributing to its underutilization. This study describes the results of applying objectively measured compressions to achieve a distraction regeneration zone and docking site consolidation during bone transport in distraction osteogenesis.

Methods: This prospective study describes the results of a single cohort of 32 patients who underwent distraction osteogenesis with bone transport utilizing a combination of a minimally invasive rail plate and monolateral external fixation. The patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) those with hypertrophic, atrophic, or infectious pseudarthrosis-nonunion (the pseudarthrosis-nonunion group), and (2) those with bone loss due to trauma or osteomyelitis (the bone loss group). The initial bone compression was measured during the latency phase, and the final compression was measured during the distraction phase. The healing index, external fixation index, healing time, consolidation time, and docking time were calculated for each patient. The Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparisons between and within groups.

Results: In this study, 28 (88%) of the patients were male. The mean patient age was 44.93 ± 16.21 years. The median values were 3.2 Nm for the initial compression and 3.4 Nm for the final compression, with no significant difference between or within groups of patients. The osseous results were excellent in 29 patients (91%), and the functional results were good or excellent in 31 patients (97%).

Conclusions: This study is the first to objectively measure compression in the bone transport process. Our findings showed that all patients who had an initial compression of ≥3.2 Nm achieved 100% consolidation of the distraction regeneration zone, and those who had a final compression of ≥2.9 Nm achieved complete docking site consolidation without complications. These 2 values thus represent effective compression and highlight the role of bone compression in bone transport.

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

Background: The most common reason for lower-extremity amputations remains the management of complications of diabetes mellitus (DM) and/or peripheral vascular disease. Traditional socket prostheses remain the rehabilitation standard, although transcutaneous osseointegration for amputees (TOFA) is proving a viable alternative. Limited studies of TOFA for vascular amputees have been published, but no study has focused on TOFA for patients with DM, neglecting this important patient population. The primary aim of the present study exploring this potential care option was to report the frequencies and types of adverse events following TOFA for patients with well-controlled DM. The secondary aims were to report their mobility and quality-of-life changes.

Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 17 consecutive patients with well-controlled DM who had undergone unilateral transfemoral TOFA from 2013 to 2019 and had been followed for at least 2 years. Outcomes were perioperative complications, additional surgery (soft-tissue refashioning, debridement, implant removal, periprosthetic fracture treatment), mobility (daily prosthesis wear hours, K-level, Timed Up and Go Test, 6-Minute Walk Test), and patient-reported outcomes (Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation, Short Form-36).

Results: There were no perioperative systemic complications, deaths, or proximal amputations. Two patients (12%) sustained a periprosthetic fracture following a fall, managed by internal fixation with implant retention, and regained independent ambulation. Eight patients (47%) had additional surgery or surgeries for non-traumatic complications: 4 (24%) had soft-tissue refashioning, 3 (18%) had debridement, and 3 others had implant removal with subsequent revision osseointegration for aseptic loosening (1) or infection (2). The proportion of patients wearing their prosthesis at least 8 hours daily improved from 5 (36%) to 11 (79%) of 14 (p = 0.054). The proportion of patients who achieved at least K-level 2 improved from 6% to 94% (p < 0.001). Other changes were not significant.

Conclusions: Contraindicating TOFA for all patients with DM seems draconian. Patients with well-controlled DM experienced significant mobility improvements, although additional surgery was somewhat common. Improvements in selection criteria or surgical technique to reduce risks are needed so that TOFA can be routinely considered for amputees with well-controlled DM.

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