Injury Risk in Collegiate Football Players With Generalized Joint Hypermobility: A Prospective Cohort Study Over 2 Years.

Background: Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) has been identified as a risk factor for injury in various athletic patient populations. Purpose: To evaluate GJH as a predisposing risk factor for injury in a population of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I football players. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The Beighton score was collected for 73 athletes during their preseason physical examinations in 2019. GJH was defined as a Beighton score ≥4. Athlete descriptive characteristics, including age, height, weight, and playing position, were recorded. The cohort was evaluated prospectively for 2 years, and the number of musculoskeletal issues, injuries, treatment episodes, days unavailable, and surgical procedures for each athlete during this period were recorded. These measures were compared between the GJH and no-GJH groups. Results: The mean Beighton score was 1.4 ± 1.5 for the 73 players; 7 players (9.6%) had a Beighton score indicating GJH. During the 2-year evaluation, there were 438 musculoskeletal issues, including 289 injuries. The mean number of treatment episodes per athlete was 77 ± 71 (range, 0-340), and the mean number of days unavailable was 67 ± 92 days (range, 0-432 days). There were 23 athletes who required 25 operations, the most common procedure being arthroscopic shoulder stabilization (n = 6). The number of injuries per athlete was not significantly different between the GJH and no-GJH groups (3.0 ± 2.1 vs 4.1 ± 3.0; P = .13), nor were there any between-group differences in the number of treatments received (74.6 ± 81.9 vs 77.2 ± 71.5; P = .47), days unavailable (79.6 ± 124.5 vs 65.3 ± 89.3; P = .61), or rates of surgery (43% vs 30%; P = .67). Conclusion: A preseason diagnosis of GJH did not place NCAA football players at a greater risk for injury during the 2-year study period. Based on the findings of this study, no specific preparticipation risk counseling or intervention is warranted for football players who are diagnosed with GJH as defined by the Beighton score.

An Investment in Knowledge: Personal Finance Education for Medical Students.

The financial burden of pursuing a medical education continues to grow, with the average medical student now owing over $240,000 in total student loan debt by the time they graduate. This burden peaks at a time when trainees are making some of the most consequential decisions of their careers. Additionally, many students are simultaneously making important financial decisions related to personal aspirations, all before a drastic change in earning potential once they begin practicing as attending physicians. Medical trainees' financial stress is linked to specialty choice, mental quality of life, and physician burnout, with additional implications of such stress for patient health and safety.1- 3 Despite these issues, there are few examples of medical schools providing direct personal finance education to their students. Given the lack of personal finance education opportunities for medical students, the authors designed and implemented a medical student-specific personal finance curriculum at their home institution in conjunction with the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Financial Information, Resources, Services, and Tools program. The curriculum, which is primarily delivered through interactive lectures, covers topics ranging from the basics of saving and investment to clinicians' potential future roles as administrators and innovators. The authors (1) present details regarding the creation of their personal finance education program; (2) invite fellow medical trainees and their respective institutions to start their own personal finance education programs or add similar curriculum to their health sciences coursework; and (3) call for recommendations by the American Medical Association (AMA) and AAMC in support of formal personal finance instruction for medical students on a national level.

Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Evaluation of the Bone Remodeling Effects of a Low-Modulus Composite Hip Stem After 2 Decades of Follow-Up.

Background: The Epoch FullCoat Hip Stem (Zimmer) was an isoelastic composite femoral stem developed to address stem stiffness concerns. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the long-term bone mineral density (BMD) of a cohort of patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the Epoch isoelastic stem and having more than 2-decade follow-up. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who were study subjects at our institution in a multicenter prospective trial for the Food and Drug Administration of the Epoch implant in the mid-1990s. Through this, we identified 16 patients who had dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans, with which we could determine BMD preoperatively and at 3 points postoperatively. Of these, 5 agreed to participate in the study (the others were deceased, unable or declined to participate, or were lost to follow-up) with mean follow-up of 22 years. These participants underwent clinical and radiographic evaluation consisting of a Harris hip score, anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and AP and lateral hip X-rays, and DEXA evaluation of both hips. BMD in the 7 Gruen zones at last follow-up was compared with immediate postoperative and 2-year follow-up. Results: At last follow-up, all stems were well-fixed with signs of extensive osteointegration. In proximal Gruen zones 1 and 7, patients underwent a decrease in BMD with more modest losses in Gruen zone 1. All patients demonstrated an increase in BMD in zones 2 through 6 at latest follow-up, except for 1 patient in Gruen zone 6. BMD changes were not limited to the first 2 years of follow-up. Conclusion: This small follow-up cohort study found excellent long-term clinical results, no plain radiographic signs of notable stress shielding, and general maintenance of BMD at a follow-up of over 20 years for this isoelastic stem. Long-term bone remodeling after implantation of the isoelastic stem resulted in increased BMD in Gruen zones 2 through 6, suggesting that composite implant designs may still have a role in THA.

Risk factors for loss to follow up of pelvis and acetabular fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic and acetabular fracture incidence is increasing worldwide for more than four decades. There is currently no evidence examining risk factors for loss to follow up in patients with these injuries. METHODS: Patients presenting with pelvic and/or acetabular fractures at our institution between 2015 and 2020 were included. Demographic, injury, treatment, and follow up information was included. Excluded patients were those who sustained a pathologic fracture, has a course of treatment prior to transfer to our centre, or expired prior to discharge. RESULTS: 446 patients, 263 with a pelvic ring injury, 172 with an acetabular fracture, and 11 with combined injuries were identified. 271 (61%) of patients in our cohort followed up in Orthopaedic clinic (p = 0.016). With an odds ratio of 2.134, gunshot wound mechanism of injury was the largest risk factor for loss to follow up (p = 0.031) followed by male sex (OR= 1.859) and surgery with general trauma surgery (OR=1.841). The most protective risk factors for follow up with Orthopaedic surgery were operatively treated pelvic and acetabular fractures (OR=0.239) and Orthopaedic Surgery as the discharging service (OR=0.372). DISCUSSION: Numerous risk factors exist for loss to follow up including male sex, ballistic mechanism, and discharging service. Investigation into interventions to improve follow up in these patients are warranted.

Characteristics and Trends of Highly Cited Articles in Calcaneus Fracture Research.

Background: Despite significant effort expended toward exploring fracture patterns, surgical timing, surgical approaches, and possible implants within the calcaneus fracture literature, treatment is still fraught with complications and controversy. This study aims to conduct a citation analysis of the most cited articles related to calcaneus fractures to highlight the most historically influential articles, as well as the more recent breakthrough articles that are leading change within the field. Methods: A literature search was performed via Scopus on September 20, 2021 using the terms "(calcaneus OR calcaneal OR hindfoot) AND (fracture OR injury)" to search "article title, abstract, and keywords" of all primary and review articles. Search results were rigorously reviewed to ensure appropriateness for this study. The 50 highest total cited included articles were analyzed. Title, authors, journal, country of origin, institution, year of publication, citation variables (total citation count, total citation density, citation count from the last 5 years, and 5-year citation density), and level of evidence were collected for each article. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc testing was used to identify differences in citation variables and level of evidence. Pearson correlation was used to directly compare different citation variables. Results: The total citation count average was 178±33, with a total citation density average of 9±2. The year of publication for the 50 articles ranged from 1948 to 2014, with a median year of 1999. Roy W. Sanders was the most productive author in the field, authoring 6 articles and lead authoring 3. The most frequent level of evidence was IV with 19 articles. There was a strong correlation between total citation density and 5-year citation density. The article level of evidence showed no impact on the included measures of an article's influence. Conclusion: This study successfully analyzes and presents the characteristics among the highest cited articles related to calcaneus fractures. The provided characterization of influential works and authors highlights trends, impactful findings, and future areas of focus within calcaneus fracture literature.Level of Evidence: Review Article.

A Novel USMLE Step 1 Projection Model Using a Single Comprehensive Basic Science Self-Assessment Taken During a Brief Intense Study Period.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Basic Science Self-Assessments (CBSSAs) offered by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) are used by students to gauge preparedness for the United States Medical Licensing (USMLE) Step 1. Because residency programs value Step 1 scores, students expend many resources attempting to score highly on this exam. We sought to generate a predicted Step 1 score from a single CBSSA taken several days out from a planned exam date to inform student testing and study plans. METHODS: 2016 and 2017 Step 1 test takers at one US medical school were surveyed. The average daily score improvement from CBSSA to Step 1 during the 2016 study period was calculated and used to generate a predicted Step 1 score as well as mean absolute prediction errors (MAPEs). The predictive model was validated on 2017 data. RESULTS: In total, 43 of 61 respondents totaling 141 CBSSAs in 2016 and 37 of 43 respondents totaling 122 CBSSAs in 2017 were included. The final prediction model was [Predicted Step 1 = 292 - (292 - CBSSA score) * 0.987527 ^ (number of days out)]. In 2016, the average difference between predicted and actual scores was -0.81 (10.2) and the MAPE was 7.8. In 2017, 88 (72.1%) and 118 (96.7%) of true Step 1 scores fell within one and two standard deviations of a student's predicted score. There was a MAPE of 7.7. Practice form used (p = 0.19, 0.07) and how far out from actual Step 1 it was taken (p = 0.82, 0.38) were not significant in either year of study. CONCLUSION: This projection model is reasonable for students to use to gauge their readiness for Step 1 while it remains a scored exam and provides a framework for future predictive model generation as the landscape of standardized testing changes in medical education.

Rate of USMLE Step 2 CK Scores Included on Orthopedic Surgery Applications and Associations With Step 1 Score.

Background At present, orthopedic surgery applicants do not universally include Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (Step 2 CK) scores on their applications and current inclusion rates are not yet reported. As Step 1 transitions to pass/fail scoring, we suspect more applicants will include Step 2 CK scores. We sought to identify what percentage of applications currently include Step 2 CK, if applicants who include Step 2 CK (Step 1+CK) score lower on Step 1 than those not including Step 2 CK (Step 1-CK), and what correlations exist between Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores among those who include the scores on their applications. Methodology Applicants to one residency program over two application cycles (2019-2020) were analyzed. The percentage including Step 1 and Step 2 scores was recorded. Step 1 scores were compared between Step 1+CK and Step 1-CK applicants. Differences between Step 2 CK and Step 1 scores were stratified by Step 1 score. Results A total of 1,688 applicants applied to our institution from 2019 to 2020. Of those reporting United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, 1,316/1,660 (79%) reported a Step 2 CK score. Step 1-CK applicants scored higher on Step 1 (250.7 ± 10.9) versus Step 1+CK applicants (244.3 ± 13.1) (p < 0.0001). More applicants who scored lower on Step 1 improved upon their percentile rank between Step 1 and Step 2 CK than those who scored higher on Step 1 (χ2 (8,1316) = 79.1, p < 0.0001). Conclusions From 2019 to 2020, 79% of applicants included Step 2 CK. Lower Step 1 scores were more likely to include Step 2 CK and improve upon their percentile score. It is unclear how Step 1 scoring change will affect current practice.

Resident Selection in the Wake of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Transition to Pass/Fail Scoring.

INTRODUCTION: The numeric score for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 is one of the only universal, objective, scaled criteria for comparing the many students who apply to orthopaedic surgery residency. However, on February 12, 2020, it was announced that Step 1 would be transitioning to pass/fail scoring. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the most important factors used for interview and resident selection after this change and (2) to assess how these factors have changed compared with a previous report on resident selection. METHODS: A survey was distributed to the program directors (PDs) of all 179 orthopaedic surgery programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Questions focused on current resident selection practices and the impact of the Step 1 score transition on expected future practices. RESULTS: A total of 78 PDs (44%) responded to the survey. Over half of PDs (59%) responded that United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) score is the factor that will increase most in importance after Step 1 transitions to pass/fail, and 90% will encourage applicants to include their Step 2 CK score on their applications. The factors rated most important in resident selection from zero to 10 were subinternship performance (9.05), various aspects of interview performance (7.49 to 9.01), rank in medical school (7.95), letters of recommendation (7.90), and Step 2 CK score (7.27). Compared with a 2002 report, performance on manual skills testing, subinternship performance, published research, letters of recommendations, and telephone call on applicants' behalf showed notable increases in importance. DISCUSSION: As Step 2 CK is expected to become more important in the residency application process, current applicant stress on Step 1 scores may simply move to Step 2 CK scores. Performance on subinternships will remain a critical aspect of residency application, as it was viewed as the most important resident selection factor and has grown in importance compared with a previous report.

Factors Influencing Subspecialty Choice of Orthopedic Residents: Effect of Gender, Year in Residency, and Presumptive Subspecialty.

Background: Subspecialty training is a common part of orthopedic surgical training. The factors which influence resident subspecialty choice have important residency design and workforce implications. Our objective was to present survey data gathered from orthopedic residents regarding their fellowship plans and relative importance of factors which influence those plans. Methods: An anonymous online survey tool was developed and distributed to orthopedic residents through their program directors at academic institutions across the country with orthopedic surgery residency programs. Results: 227 residents completed the survey. 97% planned to pursue fellowship training after residency. The most common presumptive subspecialties were sports (29.7%), joints (17.3%) and shoulder/ elbow (12.8%). The majority of senior residents (57%) reported that their subspecialty choice had changed during residency. When making their choice of subspecialty, residents were most influenced by their experiences working on the subspecialty service in question, their experiences working with a mentor, and intellectual interest. The factors influencing their choice were affected by gender, residency year and presumptive subspecialty. Conclusions: The most critical factors influencing subspecialty choice of orthopedic residents included experiences in rotations as a resident, intellectual interest and mentors in certain subspecialties. Factors influencing subspecialty choice changes over the course of residency and differ between male and female residents. This information may be useful for residency design, mentorship structuring, career counseling and for addressing subspecialty surpluses or shortages which arise in the future.Level of Evidence: IV.

Is Bony Knee Alignment Representative of the True Joint Surface in Skeletally Immature Patients? A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: In deformity correction around the knee, the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) are used in surgical planning routinely. While plain radiographs are generally adequate, some surgeons utilise intraoperative arthrograms to visualise the articular contours and assess a younger child's true joint alignment, often with findings that these are discrepant from that measured just using bone alignment. The age cutoff for a discrepancy between the two is not defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried our picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) database for MRIs with a radiological read of "normal" for patients between the ages of 4 and 16 years at the time of the study. Anatomic axes were used to determine the anatomic LDFA (aLDFA) and MPTA angles using end-cartilage and end-bone landmarks independently. RESULTS: We reviewed 116 MRIs, 56% male, with approximately 9 studies per year of age. There were no significant overall differences between aLDFA and MPTA when measured at the bone vs cartilage surfaces (p = 0.42 and p = 0.53, respectively). In the 4- to 6-year age range, there was a significant difference between bony and cartilaginous aLDFA (p = 0.02) but not MPTA (p = 0.88). CONCLUSION: In children 6 years of age and younger, intraoperative arthrogram should be considered while treating knee deformity, as plain films may not fully represent the true deformity of the distal femur in particular. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Supports the need for advanced imaging or intraoperative arthrogram for joint corrective surgery in young patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 diagnostic. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Bigach SD, Carender CN, Liu RW. Is Bony Knee Alignment Representative of the True Joint Surface in Skeletally Immature Patients? A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2020;15(2):79-83.

Consolidation and maturation of the orthopaedic medical device market between 1999 and 2015.

Orthopaedic surgeons often require highly specialized medical devices, implants, and equipment, which are usually offered by several vendors/companies. This study assesses long-term market trends for orthopaedic medical device companies and examines various implications for healthcare cost. Using S&P Capital IQ, a Wall Street database, financial data were gathered on orthopaedic device companies, ranked by worldwide sales, from 1999 to 2015. Annual sales were aggregated to calculate market share and compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs). Overall, the global orthopaedic device market grew at 12.0% CAGR from 1999 to 2008, before slowing to 2.8% from 2009 to 2015. Between 1999 and 2015, the top 5 companies increased total market share from 52.8 to 62.2%. The orthopaedic device market is not only consolidating under a few dominant players, but also growing at a decreasing rate, both of which signal a maturing industry. These trends are likely to shape patient care and healthcare costs in orthopaedic surgery in years to come.