Effect of Spaceflight and Microgravity on the Musculoskeletal System: A Review.

With National Aeronautics and Space Administration's plans for longer distance, longer duration spaceflights such as missions to Mars and the surge in popularity of space tourism, the need to better understand the effects of spaceflight on the musculoskeletal system has never been more present. However, there is a paucity of information on how spaceflight affects orthopaedic health. This review surveys existing literature and discusses the effect of spaceflight on each aspect of the musculoskeletal system. Spaceflight reduces bone mineral density at rapid rates because of multiple mechanisms. While this seems to be recoverable upon re-exposure to gravity, concern for fracture in spaceflight remains as microgravity impairs bone strength and fracture healing. Muscles, tendons, and entheses similarly undergo microgravity adaptation. These changes result in decreased muscle mass, increased tendon laxity, and decreased enthesis stiffness, thus decreasing the strength of the muscle-tendon-enthesis unit with variable recovery upon gravity re-exposure. Spaceflight also affects joint health; unloading of the joints facilitates changes that thin and atrophy cartilage similar to arthritic phenotypes. These changes are likely recoverable upon return to gravity with exercise. Multiple questions remain regarding effects of longer duration flights on health and implications of these findings on terrestrial medicine, which should be the target of future research.

Forgetting the Frail: National Trends in Vitamin D Prescription After Fragility Fracture-A Large Insurance Claims Database Study.

INTRODUCTION: Vitamin D plays a critical role in bone health, affecting bone mineral density and fracture healing. Insufficient serum vitamin D levels are associated with increased fracture rates. Despite guidelines advocating vitamin D supplementation, little is known about the prescription rates after fragility fractures. This study aims to characterize vitamin D prescription rates after three common fragility fractures in patients older than 50 years and explore potential factors influencing prescription rates. METHODS: The study used the PearlDiver Database, identifying patients older than 50 years with hip fractures, spinal compression fractures, or distal radius fractures between 2010 and 2020. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and vitamin D prescription rates were analyzed. Statistical methods included chi-square analysis and univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3,214,294 patients with fragility fractures were included. Vitamin D prescriptions increased from 2.50% to nearly 6% for all fracture types from 2010 to 2020. Regional variations existed, with the Midwest having the highest prescription rate (4.25%) and the West the lowest (3.31%). Patients with comorbidities such as diabetes, tobacco use, obesity, female sex, age older than 60 years, and osteoporosis were more likely to receive vitamin D prescriptions. DISCUSSION: Despite a notable increase in vitamin D prescriptions after fragility fractures, the absolute rates remain low. Patient comorbidities influenced prescription rates, perhaps indicating growing awareness of the link between vitamin D deficiency and these conditions. However, individuals older than 60 years, a high-risk group, were markedly less likely to receive prescriptions, possibly because of practice variations and concerns about polypharmacy. Educational initiatives and revised guidelines may have improved vitamin D prescription rates after fragility fractures. However, there is a need to raise awareness about the importance of vitamin D for bone health, particularly in older adults, and additional study variations in prescription practices. These findings emphasize the importance of enhancing post-fracture care to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with fragility fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Team Approach: Organizing and Empowering Multidisciplinary Teams in Postfragility Fracture Care.

¼ Numerous healthcare roles can be valuable and effective participants in postfracture care programs (PFCPs) and can also serve effectively as program liaisons/champions.¼ Greatest success seems to have been achieved when a single entity provides cohesive and consistent training, coordination, shared goals, and accountability for program sites and site leaders.¼ Few PFCPs have solved what seems to be the fundamental challenge of such programs: how to maintain program effectiveness and cohesion when the patient makes the inevitable transition from acute care to primary care? Creating a partnership with shared goals with primary care providers is a challenge for every program in every location.¼ Programs located in the United States, with its predominantly "open" healthcare system, seem to lag other parts of the world in overcoming this fundamental challenge.¼ It is hoped that all PFCPs in all systems can learn from the successes of other programs in managing this critical transition from acute to primary care.

Fracture healing-orthobiologics: from basic science to clinical application.

Orthopaedics as a field and a profession is fundamentally concerned with the treatment of musculoskeletal disease, in all of its many forms. Our collective understanding of the cellular mechanisms underlying musculoskeletal pathology resulting from injury continues to evolve, opening novel opportunities to develop orthobiologic treatments to improve care. It is a long path to move from an understanding of cellular pathology to development of successful clinical treatment, and this article proposes to discuss some of the challenges to achieving translational therapies in orthopaedics. The article will focus on challenges that clinicians will likely face in seeking to bring promising treatments forward to clinical practice and strategies for improving success in translational efforts.

Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Osteoporosis in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Spinal Reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN: Expert consensus study. OBJECTIVE: This expert panel was created to establish best practice guidelines to identify and treat patients with poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstruction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently, no guidelines exist for the management of osteoporosis and osteopenia in patients undergoing spinal reconstructive surgery. Untreated osteoporosis in spine reconstruction surgery is associated with higher complications and worse outcomes. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel with 18 experts was assembled including orthopedic and neurological surgeons, endocrinologists, and rheumatologists. Surveys and discussions regarding the current literature were held according to Delphi method until a final set of guidelines was created with over 70% consensus. RESULTS: Panelists agreed that bone health should be considered in every patient prior to elective spinal reconstruction. All patients above 65 and those under 65 with particular risk factors (chronic glucocorticoid use, high fracture risk or previous fracture, limited mobility, and eight other key factors) should have a formal bone health evaluation prior to undergoing surgery. DXA scans of the hip are preferable due to their wide availability. Opportunistic CT Hounsfield Units of the vertebrae can be useful in identifying poor bone health. In the absence of contraindications, anabolic agents are considered first line therapy due to their bone building properties as compared with antiresorptive medications. Medications should be administered preoperatively for at least 2 months and postoperatively for minimum 8 months. CONCLUSION: Based on the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts, we propose best practice guidelines for assessment and treatment of poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstructive surgery. Patients above age 65 and those with particular risk factors under 65 should undergo formal bone health evaluation. We also established guidelines on perioperative optimization, utility of various diagnostic modalities, and the optimal medical management of bone health in this population.Level of Evidence: 5.

Impact of Level of Evidence on Citation of Orthopaedic Articles.

INTRODUCTION: Level of evidence grading has become widely used in orthopaedics. This study reviewed clinical research articles published in leading orthopaedic journals to describe the association between level of evidence and number of future citations, which is one measure of an article's impact in the field. METHODS: The first 100 clinical research articles published in 2014 by each of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine were reviewed for level of evidence and article characteristics. Web of Science was used to identify the number of citations of each article over the following 5 years. Univariable analyses and multivariable linear regression were used to describe the associations. RESULTS: Three hundred articles were evaluated. Univariable analysis revealed no association between level of evidence and number of citations, with a median number of citations for level 1 articles of 23 (interquartile range [IQR], 14-49), level 2 articles 24 (IQR, 13-47), level 3 articles 22 (IQR, 13-40), and level 4 or 5 articles 20 (IQR, 10-36). Univariable analyses showed weak associations between other article characteristics and citations. Even after adjusting for other variables, the standardized regression coefficient for level 1 versus level 4 or 5 was only 0.14 and the overall model had a poor fit with an R2 of 0.18. CONCLUSIONS: Among clinical research articles published in leading orthopaedic journals, no notable association was found between level of evidence and future citations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Readers of the orthopaedic literature should understand that no association was found between level of evidence and future citations. Additional work is needed to better understand the effect level of evidence has on clinicians and researchers.

Ballistic Supracondylar Distal Femur Fractures Have Lower Rates of Intra-articular Extension Than Blunt Distal Femur Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative frequencies of intra-articular extension of supracondylar distal femur fractures in blunt versus ballistic trauma and the diagnostic accuracy of conventional radiography in identifying intra-articular extension in these fractures. DESIGN: A retrospective review. SETTING: Urban academic trauma center. STUDY GROUP: Thirty-eight patients were included for analysis, with 19 blunt and 19 ballistic mechanism distal femur fractures. INTERVENTION: Fleiss' kappa score was calculated in determining interobserver reliability of the OTA/AO classification. Radiographic specificity and sensitivity were compared using Fischer exact testing. Quantitative data were compared using 2-tailed t-testing for continuous variables and chi-square tests for proportions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Rate of intra-articular extension of ballistic versus blunt supracondylar femur fractures. RESULTS: Seventeen of 19 patients (89.5%) with blunt trauma had intra-articular involvement compared with 5 of 19 patients (26.3%) with ballistic trauma (P = 0.001). For blunt fractures, preoperative radiographs were 94% sensitive for the detection of intra-articular extension compared with 100% sensitive for ballistic fractures (P = 1.000). We identified one case, in the blunt cohort, where the operative plan changed from intramedullary nail to open reduction and internal fixation as a result of the additional coronal plane fracture pattern identified on CT. There were no such occurrences in the ballistic cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of intra-articular extension for ballistic supracondylar femur fractures is lower than blunt distal femur fracture. There were low rates of missed intra-articular fractures and changes in operative plans after reviewing CT imaging for both blunt and ballistic distal femur fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Secondary Fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition.

Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fractureamong people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, andsubcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficaciousandcanreduce risk of future fracture.Patientsneededucation,however, about thebenefitsandrisks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive butmay be beneficial for selected patients at high risk.Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the earlypost-fractureperiod,prompt treatment is recommended.Adequate dietary or supplemental vitaminDand calciumintake shouldbe assured. Individuals beingtreatedfor osteoporosis shouldbe reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, includingvia patienteducationabout osteoporosisandfracturesandmonitoringfor adverse treatment effects.Patients shouldbestronglyencouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol inmoderation atmost, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease).

Do 30-Day Reoperation Rates Adequately Measure Quality in Orthopedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Unplanned reoperation rates represent an important metric in monitoring quality in orthopedic surgery. Previous studies have focused on 30-day reoperation rates, not accounting for complications that may arise beyond this time. This study aimed to understand the frequency, timing, and procedure type of orthopedic reoperations, as well as the complications leading up to these reoperations over a 1-year period. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study reviewed all orthopedic surgeries performed within a three-year period and subsequently identified reoperations within a year following the initial case. Exclusion criteria for reoperations included those that were planned, involved a different body part, or had a different laterality from the first operation. The cases were analyzed by procedure type, timing of reoperation, and causes of reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 10,449 orthopedic surgeries performed between 2012 and 2015, 947 (9.1%) were unplanned reoperations within 1 year. Most (775; 81.8%) unplanned reoperations occurred after 30 days. Infections/wound complications (58.2%) were the most common reason for unplanned reoperations at 1 month from the initial operation, and mechanical complications (49.5%) predominated at the 6-months-to-1-year time frame. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the current paradigm of focusing on reoperations occurring within 30 days of the initial operation captures only a fraction of unplanned reoperations. Stratification of this metric by time and precipitating complication type provides additional information that quality improvement programs may target. A 1-year unplanned reoperation rate could be used as a broad indicator of surgical quality across institutions.

Secondary Fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition.

Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fracture among people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, and subcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficacious and can reduce risk of future fracture. Patients need education, however, about the benefits and risks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive but may be beneficial for selected patients at high risk. Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the early post-fracture period, prompt treatment is recommended. Adequate dietary or supplemental vitamin D and calcium intake should be assured. Individuals being treated for osteoporosis should be reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, including via patient education about osteoporosis and fractures and monitoring for adverse treatment effects. Patients should be strongly encouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol in moderation at most, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease). © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Financial Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Surgical Treatment of Foot and Ankle Osteomyelitis.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is generally considered the most sensitive imaging for diagnosis of osteomyelitis; however, it is associated with significant cost and is at times ordered as initial screening imaging when a less resource-intensive test would suffice. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the differences between patients with osteomyelitis of the foot and ankle, and their subsequent treatment course, who underwent MRI compared with those who did not. Financial impact of MRI as it relates to clinical decision-making was also calculated. Patients treated for a diagnosis of osteomyelitis of the foot and ankle from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively identified. Demographics, imaging modalities, and operative procedures for each patient were collected. An "impact MRI" was defined as one that led to a subsequent operative procedure within the same admission. The impact cost of an MRI was estimated using the equation: (average MRI cost) × (total MRIs/impact MRIs). A total of 144 patients underwent 220 MRIs, and 399 patients did not have MRIs. The operative rate between the 2 groups was similar (70.8% versus 70.4%, p = .93). Multiple linear regression showed that MRI was not a significant predictor of operation (p = .50). However, we found a significant correlation between MRI use and operative intervention for patients with increased comorbidities. From 2011 to 2015, there was a significant increase in impact cost, while controlling for average MRI cost ($8172 to $15,292, p ≤ .05). Over the study period, the impact cost of an MRI significantly increased from 1.8 to 5.0 times the average cost.

Association of Injury Energy Level and Neurovascular Injury Following Knee Dislocation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the associations between mechanism of injury energy level and neurovascular injury (NVI) following knee dislocation (KD) using a large representative sample of trauma patients and to examine risk factors within these groups. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Trauma centers participating in the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with KD without lower extremity fracture. INTERVENTION: Patients were grouped as ultra-low, low, or high-energy based on injury mechanism. Univariate/multivariate analyses assessed associations of energy level with NVI and of patient characteristics with NVI within energy-level groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Rate of nerve and blood vessel injury. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients with KD were identified; 181 sustained ultra-low-energy mechanisms, 275 low-energy, and 868 high-energy. Nerve injury occurred in 6% of ultra-low-energy injuries, 7% in low-energy, and 3% in high-energy (P = 0.03). Vessel injury occurred in 21% of ultra-low-energy injuries, 17% in low-energy, and 13% in high-energy (P = 0.01). On multivariate analyses, obesity was associated with nerve injury in the ultra-low-energy group (OR 4.9; 95% CI 1.0-24.0) but not with other energy levels. Obesity was also associated with vessel injury in the ultra-low-energy group (OR 4.0; 95% CI 1.6-9.7). Smoking, hypertension, and diabetes were not associated with NVI. CONCLUSIONS: NVI following KD is more common after lower energy-level mechanisms. Obesity is associated with NVI in lower energy-level mechanisms. Physicians should be vigilant in screening for NVI in the setting of KD even with seemingly benign mechanisms of injury, especially in patients with obesity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Effects of driving distance and transport time on mortality among Level I and II traumas occurring in a metropolitan area.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of ambulance driving distance and transport time on mortality among trauma incidents occurring in the City of Chicago, a large metropolitan area. METHODS: We studied individuals 16 years or older who suffered a Level I or II injury and were taken to a Level I trauma center. The outcome was in-hospital mortality, including those dead on arrival but excluding those deemed dead on scene. Driving distance was calculated from the scene of injury to the trauma center where the patient was taken. Transport time was defined as the time from scene departure to arrival at the trauma center. Covariates included injury severity measures recorded at the scene. Logistic regression and instrumental variable probit regression models were used to examine the association between driving distance, transport time, and mortality, adjusting for injury severity. RESULTS: A total of 24,834 incidents were analyzed, including 1,464 deaths. Median driving distance was 3.9 miles, and median transport time was 13 minutes. Our findings indicate that increased driving distance is associated with a modest increase in mortality, with a covariate-adjusted odds ratio of 1.12 per 2-mile increase in distance (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.20). This corresponds to an increase in overall mortality of 0.26 percentage points per 2 miles (95% CI, 0.11-0.40). Using distance as an instrumental variable, we estimate a 0.51 percentage point increase in mortality per 5-minute increase in transport time (95% CI, 0.14-0.89). CONCLUSION: We find a modest effect of distance on mortality that is approximately linear over a range of 0 to 12 miles. Instrumental variables analysis indicated a corresponding increase in mortality with increasing transport time. Limitations of the study include the possibility of unmeasured confounders and the assumption that distance affects mortality only through its effect on transport time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Trends in Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis and Deep Vein Thrombosis Rates After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) postoperatively, necessitating the use of prophylaxis medications. This investigation used a large claims database to evaluate trends in postoperative DVT prophylaxis and rates of DVT within 6 months after THA or TKA. METHODS: Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases were reviewed from 2004 to 2013 for patients who underwent THA or TKA. Data were collected on patient age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and hypercoagulability diagnoses. Postoperative medication claims were reviewed for prescribed aspirin, warfarin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. RESULTS: A total of 369,483 patients were included in the analysis, of which 239,949 patients had prescription medication claims. Warfarin was the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant. Patients with a hypercoagulable diagnosis had markedly more DVTs within 6 months after THA or TKA. More patients with a hypercoagulable diagnosis were treated with warfarin or lovenox than other types of anticoagulants. A multivariate regression analysis was performed, showing that patients prescribed aspirin, fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban were markedly less likely than those prescribed warfarin or enoxaparin to have a DVT within 6 months after THA or TKA. CONCLUSION: After THA and TKA, warfarin is the most commonly prescribed prophylaxis. Patients with hypercoagulability diagnoses are at a higher risk of postoperative DVT. The likelihood of DVT within 6 months of THA and TKA was markedly higher in patients treated with warfarin and lovenox and markedly lower in those treated with aspirin, fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Preoperative Opioid Use Is Associated with Higher Readmission and Revision Rates in Total Knee and Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid use is epidemic in the U.S. Recently, an association was demonstrated between preoperative opioid use and increased health-care utilization following abdominal surgeries. Given that primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are 2 of the most common surgical procedures in the U.S., we examined the association of preoperative opioid use with 30-day readmission and early revision rates. METHODS: We reviewed 2003 to 2014 data from 2 Truven Health MarketScan databases (commercial insurance and Medicare plus commercial supplemental insurance). Subjects were included if they had a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for primary TKA or THA and were continuously enrolled in the database for at least 6 months prior to the index procedure. Preoperative opioid prescriptions were identified using National Drug Codes (NDCs). Rates of 30-day readmissions and revision arthroplasty were identified and compared among patients with stratified durations of preoperative opioid use in the 6 months preceding TKA or THA. RESULTS: The study included 324,154 patients in the 1-year follow-up group and 159,822 patients in the 3-year follow-up group. Opioid-naive TKA patients had a lower revision rate than did those with >60 days of preoperative opioid use (1-year cohort: 1.07% compared with 2.14%, p < 0.001; 3-year cohort: 2.58% compared with 5.00%, p < 0.001). A similar trend was noted among THA patients (1-year: 0.38% compared with 1.10%, p < 0.001; 3-year: 1.24% compared with 2.99%, p < 0.001). These trends persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The 30-day readmission rate after TKA or THA was significantly lower for patients with no preoperative opioid use compared with those with >60 days of preoperative opioid use (TKA: 4.82% compared with 6.17%, p < 0.001; THA: 3.71% compared with 5.85%, p < 0.001). Again, this association persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and CCI. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative opioid use was associated with significantly increased risk of early revision and significantly increased risk of 30-day readmission after TKA and THA. This study illustrates the increased risk of poor outcomes and increased postoperative health-care utilization for patients with long-term opioid use prior to THA and TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Practice Patterns and Performance in U.S. Fracture Liaison Programs: An Analysis of >32,000 Patients from the Own the Bone Program.

BACKGROUND: We are not aware of any previous investigation assessing a national cohort of patients enrolled in a fracture liaison service (FLS) program in an open health-care system to ascertain prevalent practice patterns. The objective of this investigation was to determine, in a geographically diverse group of centers in a single FLS program, the percentage of patients for whom anti-osteoporosis treatment was recommended or started as well as to identify associations between patient and fracture variables and the likelihood of treatment being recommended. METHODS: The study utilized the Own the Bone program registry, which included 32,671 unique patient records with the required data. The primary outcome measure was whether a recommendation to start anti-osteoporosis treatment was made to the patient at the time of program enrollment. The associations between patient and fracture variables and the likelihood of having treatment recommended were calculated. RESULTS: Anti-osteoporosis treatment was recommended to 72.8% of patients and was initiated for 12.1%. A sedentary lifestyle and a parent who had sustained a hip fracture increased the likelihood of a treatment recommendation by 10% and 12%, respectively. While patients with a spinal fracture were 11% more likely to have received a treatment recommendation, those with a hip fracture were 2% less likely to have received such a recommendation. Age was not strongly associated with the likelihood of receiving a treatment recommendation but was associated with the initiation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners at sites in the Own the Bone program recommend anti-osteoporosis treatment, at the time of initial evaluation, to about three-quarters of patients who present with a fragility fracture. This is a very strong improvement over previously reported national data. The findings that a hip fracture had the lowest association and age had very little association with the likelihood of recommending treatment were unexpected and perhaps deserve further investigation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: FLS programs and sites as well as all those who manage patients with a fragility fracture can utilize the information derived from this study to improve practice patterns for the care of these patients.

A Survey on Recent Medical School Graduate Comfort With the Level 1 Milestones.

OBJECTIVE: The Next Accreditation System implemented 5 levels of milestones for orthopedic surgery residents in 2013. The Level 1 milestones were noted as those "expected of an incoming resident." While the milestones were intended for assessing resident progression and readiness for independent practice, this designation can also be used to assess how well prepared graduating medical students are for beginning an orthopedic surgery residency. The primary objective of this paper is to measure recent medical school graduate comfort with the Level 1 milestones. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In June 2015, the program directors for the Midwest Orthopaedic Surgical Skills (MOSS) Consortium affiliated residency programs were sent an online survey for distribution to the recent medical school graduates who matched at their respective programs. The survey was about recent graduate comfort with the Level 1 milestone handles associated with 16 orthopedic milestones spanning multiple subspecialties. Responses were grouped based on comfort with individual milestone handles with orthopedic conditions (e.g., carpal tunnel) or with broader categories spanning orthopedic milestones (e.g., imaging). RESULTS: In all, 66 of 112 graduates (58.9%) responded. Of 60 milestone handles surveyed, respondents were "Comfortable" with an average of 31.6 ± 14.2 handles with some conditions performing much better than others. The median "Comfortable" response rate was 31 handles. The 8 broader categories had "Comfortable" response rates between 35% and 70%. All 8 orthopedic conditions had significantly higher "Comfortable" response rates for "Evaluation & Knowledge" handles than for "Decision Making & Treatment" handles. CONCLUSIONS: Most recent medical student graduates who matched into an orthopedic surgery residencies are only comfortable with about half of the Level 1 milestone handles even though they are expected to meet the Level 1 milestones upon beginning residency. This finding suggests the development of an assessment based on the Level 1 milestones would be appropriate to better inform both graduate and undergraduate medical education in orthopedic surgery.

Tibial Plateau Fractures: A New Rank Ordering Method For Determining To What Degree Injury Severity Or Quality Of Reduction Correlate With Clinical Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Injury severity may be the most important factor in determining outcome after articular fractures, but there is a surprising paucity of clinical evidence to support this assertion. The purpose of this study was to utilize a new method for rank ordering a group of patient radiographs to assess the effect of injury severity and quality of reduction on patient outcomes after tibial plateau fractures. METHODS: Tibial plateau fractures in 64 patients were treated operatively or non-operatively based on physician preference from standard of care techniques. Fracture severity and reduction quality were stratified from radiographs by four expert clinicians using an iTunes-based rank ordering methodology. The images were distributed electronically, and the ranks were performed on local computers at three different institutions. Clinical outcomes were measured with the SF-12 health questionnaire and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). RESULTS: There was excellent or very good agreement between raters for injury severity ranking (correlation 0.77-0.91) and quality of reduction (correlation 0.66-0.82). There was no correlation between the injury severity nor quality of reduction and general or joint-specific clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Expert orthopaedic traumatologists strongly agree on how to rank order tibial plateau fractures based both on injury severity and quality of reduction. The novel electronic interface utilized allows an ever-expanding series of cases to be ranked quickly, conveniently, and across multiple centers. This interface holds great promise for establishing prospective, continuously expanding rank orders of various fracture types, which may have great value for clinical research, education about fracture severity, and for prognosis and treatment decisions. In the present study, neither injury severity nor quality of reduction correlated with the clinical outcomes. Other patient- and injury-related factors may be more important in determining clinical outcome of tibial plateau fractures than the appearances of the radiographs at the time of injury or after reduction. Level of Evidence: level III evidence.