ABSTRACT
Purpose: To report rates of preoperative and postoperative opioid use between male and female patients and to identify risk factors for extended opioid use following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: Patients undergoing ACLR between 2011 and 2018 were identified from the PearlDiver database. The opioid refill rates for males vs females were compared at monthly intervals for 1 year after ACLR. Patients who filled an opioid prescription <3 months before surgery were classified as opioid users, while those who had never filled one were classified as nonopioid users. Results: Of 106,995 ACLR patients, 37,890 (35.4%) were opioid users <3 months before surgery, and 37,554 (35.1%) had never filled an opioid prescription. Of the preoperative opioid users, 20,413 (53.9%) were female and 17,477 (46.1%) were male (P < .001). Postoperatively, females were at higher risk of filling an opioid prescription at each monthly interval, except for the first month after surgery. The refill rate for opioid users was also higher than that for nonopioid users at each monthly interval after ACLR. In addition to patient sex, a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety/depression, low back pain, myalgia, a history of drug dependence, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use increased a patient's risk of filling an opioid prescription postoperatively. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that females are significantly more likely to be opioid users than males prior to ACLR and are more likely to continue to refill an opioid prescription in the year following surgery. Multiple risk factors were associated with prolonged postoperative opioid utilization, including female sex, anxiety/depression, low back pain, myalgia, a history of drug dependence, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
ABSTRACT
Doximity residency rankings are used to compare training programs. Reputation is a component of Doximity rankings and is based on physician surveys. Outcomes-based measures allow for objective program comparison and may be more appropriate when assessing programs. This study evaluated how Doximity rankings of orthopaedic surgery residency programs compare with an outcomes-based ranking of programs based on academic productivity. This study also evaluated whether program size and type were associated with academic productivity. Methods: Orthopaedic program rankings, size, type, and research productivity were recorded from Doximity. An academic productivity score was calculated by averaging the mean percentage of alumni clinical trials and alumni publications. Analysis of variance and post hoc analyses were performed to determine whether academic productivity was associated with program reputation, size, and type. Results: One hundred seventy-five orthopaedic residency programs were included. Program rankings, size, and type had a statistically significant association with academic productivity (p < 0.0001). The 44 orthopaedic programs in the top quartile had an academic productivity score of 79.1 ± 13 in comparison with programs in the bottom quartile, who had a score of 38.3 ± 12.1 (p < 0.0001). Of the programs in the top quartile of reputation rankings, 32 (73%) were also in the top quartile for academic productivity. Programs with more residents demonstrated greater academic productivity than smaller programs. Twenty-three programs (13%) had more than 30 residents and a mean academic productivity of 76.2 ± 14.8. In comparison, 13 programs (7.5%) had 10 or fewer residents with an academic productivity score of 40.6 ± 16.3 (p < 0.0001). An academic productivity score differed significantly based on program type: university (63.9 ± 14.8), military (54.7 ± 16.9), university/community (46.3 ± 15.6), and community (38.7 ± 15) (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Academic productivity among orthopaedic residency programs is associated with Doximity ranking, program size, and type. This information can be used by medical students, residents, and physicians to understand the Doximity rankings and how they correlate with this objective measure. Level of Evidence: III.
