Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications of patients under consideration for surgical treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature to identify the appropriateness of the three treatments. The 864 patient scenarios and 3 treatments were developed by the writing panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary, voting panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. To provide the evidence foundation for this AUC, the AAOS Evidence-Based Medicine Unit provided the writing panel and voting panel with the 2016 AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline titled Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. The Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients with suspected carpal tunnel syndrome in clinical practice, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature to identify the appropriateness of treatments. The 135 patient scenarios and 6 treatments were developed by the writing panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary, voting panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Patients with Orthopaedic Implants Undergoing Dental Procedures.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, in collaboration with the American Dental Association, has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Patients with Orthopaedic Implants Undergoing Dental Procedures. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Patients with Orthopaedic Implants Undergoing Dental Procedures AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications of patients with orthopaedic implants presenting for dental procedures, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature to identify the appropriateness of the use of prophylactic antibiotics. The 64 patient scenarios and 1 treatment were developed by the writing panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary, voting panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Treatment of Hip Fractures in the Elderly.

Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Treatment of Hip Fractures in the Elderly to improve patient care and obtain optimal outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients commonly presenting with hip fractures in clinical practice, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 30 patient scenarios and 6 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. A separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel made up of specialists and nonspecialists rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Postoperative Rehabilitation of Low Energy Hip Fractures in the Elderly.

Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Postoperative Rehabilitation of Low Energy Hip Fractures in the Elderly to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that typically accompany hip fractures, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 72 patient scenarios and 10 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. A separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel made up of specialists and nonspecialists rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Femoral Condyle.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Management of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Femoral Condyle. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that generally accompany osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyle, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 64 patient scenarios and 12 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Lastly, a separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures With Vascular Injury.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures With Vascular Injury. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that generally accompany a pediatric supracondylar humerus fracture with vascular injury, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 6 patient scenarios and 18 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, the Review Panel, a separate group of volunteer physicians, independently reviewed these materials to ensure that they were representative of patient scenarios that clinicians are likely to encounter in daily practice. Finally, the multidisciplinary Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Orthopaedic resident and program director opinions of resident duty hours: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established national guidelines for resident duty hours in July 2003. Following an Institute of Medicine report in December 2008, the ACGME recommended further restrictions on resident duty hours that went into effect in July 2011. We conducted a national survey to assess the opinions of orthopaedic residents and of directors of residency and fellowship programs in the U.S. regarding the 2003 and 2011 ACGME resident duty-hour regulations and the effects of these regulations on resident education and patient care. METHODS: A fifteen-item questionnaire was electronically distributed by the Candidate, Resident, and Fellow Committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) to all U.S. orthopaedic residents (n = 3860) and directors of residency programs (n = 184) and fellowship programs (n = 496) between January and April 2011. Thirty-four percent (1314) of the residents and 27% (185) of the program directors completed the questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed to detect differences between the responses of residents and program directors and between the responses of junior and senior residents. RESULTS: The responses of orthopaedic residents and program directors differed significantly (p < 0.001) for fourteen of the fifteen survey items. The responses of residents and program directors were divergent for questions regarding the 2003 rules. Overall, 71% of residents thought that the eighty-hour work week was appropriate, whereas only 38% of program directors agreed (p < 0.001). Most program directors (70%) did not think that the 2003 duty-hour rules had improved patient care, whereas only 24% of residents responded in the same way (p < 0.001). The responses of residents and program directors to questions regarding the 2011 duty-hour rules were generally compatible, but the degree to which they perceived the issues was different. Only 18% of residents and 19% of program directors thought that the suggested strategic five-hour evening rest period implemented in July 2011 for on-call residents was appropriate (p > 0.05), and both groups (84% of residents and 74% of program directors) also disagreed with the limitation of intern shifts to sixteen hours (p < 0.001). Seventy percent of residents and 79% of program directors thought that the new duty-hour regulations would result in an increased number of handoffs that would be detrimental to patient care (p < 0.001). The mean responses of junior residents and senior residents differed for eight of the fifteen survey items (p < 0.001), with the responses of senior residents more closely resembling those of program directors on six of these eight questions. The mean responses and percentiles for the survey items did not differ significantly between residency directors and fellowship directors (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This national survey indicated significant differences between the opinions of orthopaedic residents and program (residency and fellowship) directors regarding the 2003 ACGME resident duty-hour regulations and the effects of these regulations on resident education and patient care. However, both residents and program directors agreed that the further reductions in duty hours in the 2011 rules may be detrimental to resident education and patient care.