Synergistic effects of robotic surgery and IPACK nerve block on reduction of opioid consumption in total knee arthroplasty.

Background: There are numerous strategies to combat postoperative analgesia and expedite recovery after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to determine opioid consumption, length of stay, and functional outcomes after robotic versus standard TKA in the setting of various regional pain modalities. Methods: A consecutive series of patients treated with unilateral primary robotic or standard TKA from January 2018-February 2021 were retrospectively identified. Regional pain modalities included peri-articular injection (PAI), adductor canal block (ACB), and infiltration between popliteal artery and capsule of knee (IPACK). Patient demographics, operative/perioperative variables, and postoperative function were recorded. Daily opiate consumption was calculated as morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Multivariate regression was performed to control for age, sex, and race. Results: After review, 283 patients (177 Females; 106 Males) were included. Robotic TKA patients received IPACK + ACB (36), while standard TKA patients received either ACB (45), IPACK + ACB (167), or PAI (35). Daily inpatient opioid consumption in the standard IPACK + ACB (p = 0.02) and robotic IPACK + ACB groups (p = 0.0001) was significantly lower compared to standard ACB. When combined with IPACK block, robotic procedures synergistically lowered opiate consumption (p = 0.004) compared to standard procedures and led to earlier discharge (p = 0.003). The robotic IPACK + ACB cohort also demonstrated improved early ambulation compared to standard ACB, (p = 0.05), whereas the same benefit was not seen for patients who received IPACK during standard TKA. Conclusions: The utilization of IPACK block decreases inpatient postoperative opioid requirements following TKA. Robotic TKA and IPACK block appeared to have a synergistic effect on opioid consumption and postoperative recovery.

Orthopaedic trauma during COVID-19: Is patient care compromised during a pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system. Many institutions implemented a government-mandated restructured set of safety and administrative protocols to treat urgent orthopaedic trauma patients. The objective of this study was to compare two cohorts of patients, a COVID group and non-COVID control group, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures outlined in the Rutgers Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Safety Protocol (ROTPSP). Secondary outcomes were to elucidate risk factors for complications associated with fractures and COVID-19. METHODS: Patients treated for orthopaedic traumatic injuries were retrospectively identified between March and May 2020, and compared to a series of patients from the same time period in 2018. Main outcome measures included surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), post-operative LOS (poLOS), presentation to OR time (PORT), and length of surgery. RESULTS: After review, 349 patients (201 non-COVID, 148 COVID) undergoing 426 surgeries were included. Average LOS (11.91 days vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.04), poLOS (9.68 days vs. 7.39 days, p = 0.03), and PORT (30.56 vs. 25.59 h, p < 0.01) was significantly shorter in the COVID cohort. There were less SSI in the COVID group (5) compared to the non-COVID group (14) (p = 0.03). Overall complications were significantly lower in the COVID group. Patients receiving Cepheid tests had significantly shorter LOS and poLOS compared to patients receiving the RNA and DiaSorin tests (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The Cepheid test carried the best benefit-to-cost ratio, 0.10, p < 0.05. CONCLUSION: The restructuring of care protocols caused by COVID-19 did not negatively impact perioperative complication rates, PORT or LOS. Cepheid COVID test type administered upon admission plays an integral role in a patient's hospital course by reducing both length of stay and hospital costs. This information demonstrates we can continue to treat orthopaedic trauma patients safely during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing strict safety protocols.

Gender Parity in Academic Leadership Roles at AOSSM Annual Meetings.

BACKGROUND: Ever since orthopaedic surgery was cited as the specialty with the lowest percentage of women, research has geared toward better understanding where lapses occur and ensured that equitable opportunities exist within the field. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To analyze the 5-year trend in the academic leadership roles of female versus male orthopaedic surgeons at the AOSSM Annual Meeting. We hypothesized that a nationally representative proportion of female surgeons would hold academic leadership positions and that this figure would increase during the study period. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Publicly available AOSSM Annual Meeting brochures from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed. Moderators and course instructors with doctor of medicine (MD) or doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degrees were included. Gender-neutral names were researched as needed for gender clarification. The gender composition of total moderators and total course instructors was calculated and trended over the 5-year period. Statistics from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in 2017, the median of the study period, were used for comparison with total active sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons. RESULTS: Women represented 5.9% of moderators and course instructors at the AOSSM Annual Meeting from 2015 to 2019. The percentage of female moderators increased from 6.0% in 2015 to 8.6% in 2019, and the percentage of female course instructors increased from 3.4% in 2015 to 5.6% in 2019. After adjusting for dual contributions by a single woman to both roles, we found that 6.7% of total moderators and course instructors over the 5-year study period were women (6.3% in 2015, 7.7% in 2019). This was close to the 6.6% rate of female sports orthopaedic surgeons reported by the AAMC in 2017. CONCLUSION: Using moderator and instructor involvement at the AAOSM Annual Meetings as a proxy for involvement in academia, we found evidence to support gender parity in the orthopaedic subspecialty of sports medicine. This example of a culture of equity and inclusion may be an encouraging example to cite in recruitment efforts for prospective medical student applicants and endorsing current female surgeons to seek leadership roles in academia.

How Well Represented Are Women Orthopaedic Surgeons and Residents on Major Orthopaedic Editorial Boards and Publications?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that women are substantially underrepresented as orthopaedic surgeons and residents compared with other specialties in medicine and medical school. The reasons for this are multifactorial and not completely understood, but previous studies suggest that women may be attracted to fields in which they have female role models. Given that women interested in academia and research may use female editorship and authorship as a proxy for female representation in orthopaedic surgery, we wanted to examine the proportion of women represented in orthopaedic journals and determine if it reflects the distribution of women in orthopaedic surgery as a field. We further wanted to understand if this representation has changed over time in the setting of a slowly shifting gender landscape within orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How are women orthopaedic surgeons and residents represented in orthopaedic journals compared with men? (2) Have these proportions changed in the past two decades in light of relatively new efforts to recruit women to the field of orthopaedic surgery? METHODS: The gender composition of editorial boards and first and last authors were obtained from the 1997, 2007, and 2017 volumes of the following journals: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (JAAOS), and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®). Gender neutral names were searched to obtain a picture to ensure proper tallies. RESULTS: The total combined amount of women first and last authors increased from 88 of 1450 (6%) in 1997 to 152 of 1912 (8%) in 2007 to 723 of 5391 (13%) in 2017. Similarly, three of 113 (3%) editorial board members were women in 1997, three of 105 (3%) were women in 2007 and 10 of 107 (9%) editors were women in 2017. Of note, 0 out of 9 editors-in-chief were women. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current percentage of women orthopaedic surgeons and residents, women are represented equally or in greater numbers as editors and authors in JAAOS, JBJS, and CORR. This may be in part due to women orthopaedic surgeons entering academic medicine at a greater rate than males. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Orthopaedic surgeons serving as mentors to prospective female applicants can cite female representation on editorial boards and as authors as an example of gender parity in the field. Additionally, active orthopaedic surgeons who are women interested in these leadership positions should be encouraged that these opportunities exist, regardless of gender.