Publicly Available Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Rehabilitation Protocols Show High Variability and Frequent Divergence from the 2020 ASSET Recommendations.

Background: In 2020, the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists (ASSET) published an evidence-based consensus statement outlining postoperative rehabilitation guidelines following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) quantify the variability in online anatomic TSA rehabilitation protocols, and (2) assess their congruence with the ASSET consensus guidelines. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional investigation of publicly available, online rehabilitation protocols for anatomic TSA. A web-based search was conducted in April 2022 of publicly available rehabilitation protocols for TSA. Each collected protocol was independently reviewed by two authors to identify recommendations regarding immobilization, initiation, and progression of passive (PROM) and active range of motion (AROM), as well as the initiation and progression of strengthening and post-operative exercises and activities. The time to initiation of various components of rehabilitation was recorded as the time at which the activity or motion threshold was permitted by the protocol. Comparisons between ASSET start dates and mean start dates from included protocols were performed. Results: Of the 191 academic institutions included, 46 (24.08%) had publicly available protocols online, and a total of 91 unique protocols were included in the final analysis. There were large variations seen among included protocols for the duration and type of immobilization post-operatively, as well as for the initiation of early stretching, PROM, AROM, resistance exercises, and return to sport. Of the 37 recommendations reported by both the ASSET and included protocols, 31 (83.78%) were found to be significantly different between groups (p\<0.05). Conclusion: Considerable variability was found among online post-operative protocols for TSA with substantial deviation from the ASSET guidelines. These findings highlight the lack of standardization in rehabilitation protocols following anatomic TSA. Level of Evidence: 3b.

Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Cerebral Palsy: A Large Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental condition which can result in altered gait biomechanics, joint dysfunction, and imbalance. The complications associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with CP have not yet been well described. Therefore, our analysis sought to compare 90-day and 2-year complications following TKA in patients with and without CP. METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner database was utilized to identify patients with CP undergoing primary TKA between 2010-2020. This cohort was matched 1:4 to a control cohort without neurodegenerative disorders based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), tobacco use, obesity, and diabetes. A total of 3,257 patients (CP: n=657; Control: n=2,600) were included in our final analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was utilized to determine the risk of CP on medical and surgical complications at 90-days and all-cause revision rates at 2-years. RESULTS: Patients with CP had an increased risk of acute kidney injury (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.66; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.07-2.5; p=0.019), pneumonia (OR: 5.63, 95% CI: 3.69-8.67; p<0.001), urinary tract infection (OR: 5.01, 95% CI: 3.85-6.52; p<0.001), and transfusion (OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.50-3.23; p<0.001). CP patients additionally had a higher incidence of emergency department (ED) visits (OR: 5.24, 95% CI: 3.76-7.32; p<0.001) and re-admissions (OR: 5.24, 95% CI: 2.57-4.96; p<0.001). There were no differences in rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.69-2.10; p=0.463), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.12-1.46; p=0.463), and re-operation (or: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.71-2.43; p=0.339) at 90-days post-operatively. All-cause revision rates at 2-years were comparable (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.67-1.51, p=0.927). DISCUSSION: In this database review, we found that CP patients have a higher risk of medical complications in the acute post-operative period following TKA. Ninety-day surgical complication and 2-year revision rates in CP patients were comparable to matched controls.

Is Hospital-Based Outpatient Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Safe? An Analysis of 2,171 Outpatient Aseptic Revision Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been well-established as a safe and effective procedure; however, the safety of outpatient revision TKA remains unclear. Therefore, this study utilized a large database to compare outcomes between outpatient and inpatient revision TKA. METHODS: An all-payor database was queried to identify patients undergoing revision TKA from 2010 to 2022. Patients who had diagnosis codes related to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) were excluded. Outpatient surgery was defined as a length of stay < 24 hours. Cohorts were matched by age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, comorbidities (diabetes, obesity, tobacco use), components revised (1-versus 2-component), and revision etiology. Medical complications at 90 days and surgical complications at 1 and 2 years postoperatively were evaluated through multivariate logistic regression. A total of 4,342 aseptic revision TKAs were included. RESULTS: No differences in patient characteristics, procedure type, or revision etiologies were seen between groups. The outpatient cohort had a lower risk of PJI (odds ratio (OR): 0.547, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.337 to 0.869; P = .012), wound dehiscence (OR: 0.393, 95% CI: 0.225 to 0.658; P < .001), transfusion (OR: 0.241, 95% CI: 0.055 to 0.750; P = .027), reoperation (OR: 0.508, 95% CI: 0.305 to 0.822; P = .007), and any complication (OR: 0.696, 95% CI: 0.584 to 0.829; P < .001) at 90 days postoperatively. At 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, outpatient revision TKA patients had a lower incidence of revision for PJI (OR: 0.332, 95% CI: 0.131 to 0.743; P = .011 and OR: 0.446, 95% CI; 0.217 to 0.859; P = .020, respectively) and all-cause revision (OR: 0.518, 95% CI: 0.377 to 0.706; P < .001 and OR: 0.548, 95% CI: 0.422 to 0.712; P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that revision TKA can be safely performed on an outpatient basis in appropriately selected patients who do not have an increased risk of adverse events relative to inpatient revision TKA. However, we could not ascertain case complexity in either cohort, and despite controlling for several potential confounders, other less tangible differences could exist between groups.

Evaluating Modern Spacer Options and Outcomes in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: A 2-stage revision continues to be the standard treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in hip arthroplasty. The use of "functional" spacers may allow patients to return to daily living while optimizing their health for revision surgery. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of different spacer types regarding infection eradication, mechanical complications, and functional outcomes. METHODS: Patients who have complete Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for diagnosis of PJI that underwent one-stage or 2-stage revision were queried in an institutional surgical database between 2002 and 2022. Out of 286 patients, 210 met our inclusion criteria and were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, laboratory values, functional and patient-reported outcomes, and subsequent revisions. The study population had 54.3% women, a mean age of 61 years old, and a mean follow-up of 3.7 ± 3.2 years. There was no difference between age, body mass index, or Charlson Comorbidity Index scores between each cohort. Spacers were categorized as nonfunctional static, nonfunctional articulating, or functional articulating. Functional spacers were defined as those that allowed full weight bearing with no restrictions. Delphi criteria were used to define revision success, and failure was defined as a recurrent or persistent infection following definitive surgery. RESULTS: There was a significantly lower reoperation rate after a definitive implant in the functional articulating cohort (P = .003), with a trending higher infection eradication rate and a lower rate of spacer failure compared to the nonfunctional spacer cohort. At 5 years, functional articulating spacers had a 94.1% survivorship rate, nonfunctional articulating spacers had an 81.2% survival rate, and nonfunctional static spacers had a 71.4% survival rate. In the functional articulating spacer cohort, 14.6% had yet to get reimplanted, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within this large cohort of similar demographics, functional articulating spacers may result in better clinical outcomes and infection eradication during 2-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI.

Low-Dose Aspirin Is the Safest Prophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism After Total Knee Arthroplasty Across All Patient Risk Profiles.

BACKGROUND: The International Consensus Meeting on Venous Thromboembolism (ICM-VTE) in 2022 proclaimed low-dose aspirin as the most effective agent in patients across all risk profiles undergoing joint arthroplasty. However, data on large patient populations assessing trends in chemoprophylactic choices and related outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain scant. The present study was designed to characterize the clinical use of various chemoprophylactic agents in patients undergoing TKA and to determine the efficacy of aspirin compared with other agents in patient groups stratified by VTE risk profiles. METHODS: This study utilized a national database to determine the proportion of patients undergoing TKA who received low-dose aspirin versus other chemoprophylaxis between 2012 and 2022. VTE risk profiles were determined on the basis of comorbidities established in the ICM-VTE. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between various classes of thromboprophylaxis in patients with high and low risk of VTE were calculated. The odds of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolus (PE), bleeding events, infections, mortality, and hospitalizations were also assessed in the 90-day postoperative period for propensity-matched cohorts receiving low-dose (81 mg) aspirin only versus other prophylaxis, segregating patients by VTE risk profile. RESULTS: A total of 126,692 patients undergoing TKA across 60 health-care organizations were included. The proportion of patients receiving low-dose aspirin increased from 7.65% to 55.29% between 2012 and 2022, whereas the proportion of patients receiving other chemoprophylaxis decreased from 96.25% to 42.98%. Low-dose-aspirin-only use increased to approximately 50% in both high-risk and low-risk populations but was more likely in low-risk populations (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.20) relative to high-risk populations. Both low-risk and high-risk patients in the low-dose-aspirin-only cohorts had decreased odds of DVT, PE, bleeding, infections, and hospitalizations compared with other prophylaxis regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study on a very large population of patients undergoing TKA support the recent ICM-VTE statement by showing that low-dose aspirin is a safe and effective method of prophylaxis in patients across various risk profiles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction. CONCLUSION: While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.

Body Mass Index Does Not Drive the Risk for Early Postoperative Instability After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Instability remains the leading cause of revision following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of the present investigation was to determine whether an elevated body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk of instability after primary THA. METHODS: An administrative claims database was queried for patients undergoing elective, primary THA for osteoarthritis between 2010 and 2022. Patients who underwent THA for a femoral neck fracture were excluded. Patients who had an elevated BMI were grouped into the following cohorts: 25 to 29.9 (n = 2,313), 30 to 34.9 (n = 2,230), 35 to 39.9 (n = 1,852), 40 to 44.9 (n = 1,450), 45 to 49.9 (n = 752), and 50 to 59.9 (n = 334). Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, as well as a history of spinal fusion, neurodegenerative disorders, and alcohol abuse, to controls with a normal BMI (20 to 24.9). A multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and additional risk factors for dislocation was used to evaluate dislocation rates at 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Rates of revision for instability were similarly compared at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: No significant differences in dislocation rate were observed between control patients and each of the evaluated BMI classes at all evaluated postoperative intervals (all P values > .05). Similarly, the risk of revision for instability was comparable between the normal weight cohort and each evaluated BMI class at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively (all P values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Controlling for comorbidities and known risk factors for instability, the present analysis demonstrated no difference in rates of dislocation or revision for instability between normal-weight patients and those in higher BMI classes.

Assessing the Readability of Clinical Trial Consent Forms for Surgical Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the readability of surgical clinical trial consent forms and compare readability across surgical specialties. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of surgical clinical trial consent forms available on ClinicalTrials.gov to quantitatively evaluate readability, word count, and length variations among different specialties. The analysis was performed between November 2022 and January 2023. A total of 386 surgical clinical trial consent forms across 14 surgical specialties were included. RESULTS: The main outcomes were language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), number of words (measured as word count), time to read (measured at reading speeds of 240 per min), and readability (measured by Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Frog Index, Simple Measures of Gobbledygook Index, FORCAST, and Automated Readability Index). The surgical consent forms were a mean (standard deviation) of 2626 (1668) words long, with a mean of 12:53 min to read at 240 words per min. None of the surgical specialties had an average readability level of sixth grade or lower across all six indices, and only 16 out of 386 (4%) clinical trials met the recommended reading level. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in reading grade level between surgical specialties based on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease indices. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that current surgical clinical trial consent documents are too long and complex, exceeding the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Ensuring readable clinical trial consent forms is not only ethically responsible but also crucial for protecting patients' rights and well-being by facilitating informed decision-making.

Risk of Subsequent Fusion After Isolated Decompression of Lumbar Facet Cysts.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar facet cysts represent a potential source of nerve root compression in elderly patients. Isolated decompression without fusion has proven to be a reasonable treatment option in properly indicated patients. However, the risk of lumbar fusion after isolated decompression and facet cyst excision has yet to be elucidated. METHODS: The PearlDiver database was reviewed for patients undergoing isolated laminectomy for lumbar facet cyst from January 2015 to December 2018 using Current Procedural Terminology coding. Patients undergoing concomitant fusion or additional decompression, as well as those diagnosed with preexisting spondylolisthesis or without a minimum of 5-year follow-up, were excluded. Rates of subsequent lumbar fusion and potential risk factors for subsequent fusion were identified. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, chi square test, and multivariate logistic regression. Results were considered significant at P < 0.05. RESULTS: In total, 10,707 patients were ultimately included for analysis. At 5-year follow-up, 727 (6.79%) of patients underwent subsequent lumbar fusion after initial isolated decompression. Of these, 301 (2.81% of total patients, 41.4% of fusion patients) underwent fusion within the first year after decompression. Multivariate analysis identified chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis as risk factors for requiring subsequent lumbar fusion at 5 years following the index decompression procedure ( P < 0.033; all). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing isolated decompression for lumbar facet cysts undergo subsequent lumbar fusion at a 5-year rate of 6.79%. Risk factors for subsequent decompression include chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. This study will assist spine surgeons in appropriately counseling patients on expected postoperative course and potential risks of isolated decompression.

Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, and Hyaluronic Acid Injections Outperform Corticosteroids in Pain and Function Scores at a Minimum of 6 Months as Intra-Articular Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of common intra-articular injections used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, including corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), with a minimum follow-up of 6-months. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in August 2022 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Level I to II randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 6 months that investigated the treatments of interest were included. Patient-reported outcome scores for pain and function at baseline and at latest follow-up were extracted, and the change in scores was converted to uniform 0 to 100 scales. Arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was created to compare the treatment arms in pain and function. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies comprising a total of 9,338 knees were included. The most studied intra-articular injection was HA (40.9%), followed by placebo (26.2%), PRP (21.5%), CS (8.8%), and then BMAC (2.5%). HA and PRP both led to a significant improvement in pain compared with placebo. HA, PRP, and BMAC all led to a significant improvement in function scores when compared with placebo. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) of the interventions revealed that PRP, BMAC, and HA were the treatments with the highest likelihood of improvement in both pain and function, with overall SUCRA scores of 91.54, 76.46, and 53.12, respectively. The overall SUCRA scores for CS and placebo were 15.18 and 13.70, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a minimum 6-month follow-up, PRP demonstrated significantly improved pain and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with placebo. Additionally, PRP exhibited the highest SUCRA values for these outcomes when compared with BMAC, HA, and CS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, meta-analysis of Level I to II studies.

No clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures across total hip arthroplasty approaches.

INTRODUCTION: As recent studies demonstrate an ongoing debate surrounding outcomes and complications with respect to different total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may provide valuable information for clinician and patient decision-making. Therefore, our systematic review aimed to assess how surgical approach influences patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: 5 online databases were queried for all studies published between January 1, 1997 and March 4, 2022 that reported on PROMs across various surgical approaches to THA. Studies reporting on PROMs in primary THA patients segregated by surgical approach were included. Articles reporting on revision THA, hip resurfacing, and arthroscopy were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilised to calculate the pooled mean difference (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs). RESULTS: No differences between the DAA and other approaches were observed when evaluating HOOS (MD -0.28; 95% CI, -1.98-1.41; p = 0.74), HHS (MD 2.38; 95% CI, -0.27-5.03; p = 0.08), OHS (MD 1.35; 95% CI, -2.00-4.71; p = 0.43), FJS-12 (MD 5.88; 95% CI, -0.36-12.12; p = 0.06), VAS-pain (MD -0.32; 95% CI, -0.68-0.04; p = 0.08), and WOMAC-pain (MD -0.73; 95% CI, -3.85-2.39; p = 0.65) scores. WOMAC (MD 2.47; 95% CI, 0.54-4.40; p = 0.01) and EQ-5D Index (MD 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; p = 0.002) scores were found to significantly favour the DAA cohort over the other approaches. Only the EQ-5D index score remained significant following sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Superiority of any 1 approach could not be concluded based on the mixed findings of the present analysis. Although our pooled analysis found no significant differences in outcomes except for those measured by the EQ-5D index, a few additional metrics, notably the WOMAC, HHS, FJS-12, and VAS-pain scores, leaned in favour of the DAA.

The effect of timing between preoperative embolization and surgery: A retrospective analysis of hypervascular bone metastases.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The optimal timing between preoperative embolization of hypervascular metastatic bone lesions and surgery has yet to be established. Our analysis sought to evaluate embolization timing impacts blood loss, transfusion risk, and operative time in patients with hypervascular primary tumors. METHODS: We identified patients with renal cell (RCC) or thyroid carcinoma undergoing surgery between 1992 and 2023. Patients were segregated into the following cohorts: (1) no embolization preoperatively, (2) surgery <24 h of embolization, and (3) surgery >24 h after embolization. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of embolization timing while controlling for confounding variables. RESULTS: No differences were seen in all evaluated outcomes between immediate and delayed embolization cohorts. No differences in estimated blood loss were seen between the immediate (OR: 0.685, 95% CI: 0.159-2.949; p = 0.611) and delayed (OR: 0.568, 95% CI: 0.093-3.462; p = 0.539) surgery cohorts compared with patients without embolization. Surgery >24 h after embolization was not associated with a higher risk of prolonged operative time (OR: 13.499, 95% CI: 0.832-219.146; p = 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that surgery may be safely delayed beyond 24 h from embolization without a higher risk of bleeding. In appropriately selected cohorts, embolization may not be needed preoperatively.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system: A Markov analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RA-THA) system compared to a manual unassisted technique (mTHA) up to 5 years post-operatively. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RA-THA and mTHA. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) <$50 000 or $100 000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). RESULTS: RA-THA patients experienced lower costs compared to mTHA patients at 1 year ($20 865.12 ± 9897.52 vs. $21 660.86 ± 9909.15; p < 0.001) and 5 years ($23 124.57 ± 10 045.48 vs. $25 756.42 ± 10 091.84; p < 0.001) post-operatively. RA-THA patients also accrued more QALYs (1-year: 0.901 ± 0.117 vs. 0.888 ± 0.114; p < 0.001; 5-years: 4.455 ± 0.563 vs. 4.384 ± 0.537 p < 0.001). Overall, RA-THA was cost-effective (1-year ICER: $-61 210.77; 5-year ICER: $-37 068.31). CONCLUSIONS: The novel, fluoroscopy-based RA-THA system demonstrated cost-effectiveness when compared to manual unassisted THA.

The quality of online information on Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease: can we do better?

INTRODUCTION: As patients increasingly utilize the Internet to obtain health-related information, the accuracy and usability of information prove critical, especially for patients and parents seeking care for relatively common orthopedic childhood disorders such as Legg-Calvé-Perthes (LCP) disease. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate available online health information regarding LCP disease. The study specifically seeks to (1) examine the accessibility, usability, reliability, and readability of online information, (2) compare the quality of sites from different sources, and (3) determine whether Health on the Net Foundation Code (HON-code) certification guarantees higher quality of information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Websites from a query of both Google and Bing were compiled and scored using the Minervalidation tool (LIDA), an appraisal tool quantifying website quality, along with the Flesch-Kinkaid (FK) analysis, a metric assessing readability of content. All sites were organized based on source category [academic, private physician/physician group, governmental/non-profit organization (NPO), commercial, and unspecified] and HON-code certification. RESULTS: Physician-based and governmental/NPO sites had the highest accessibility, the unspecified site group were the most reliable and usable, and the physician-based group was found to require the least education to comprehend. Unspecified sites had a significantly higher rating of reliability than physician sites (p = 0.0164) and academic sites (p < 0.0001). HON-code-certified sites were found to have greater scores across quality domains along with being easier to read compared to sites without certification, with significantly higher reliability scoring (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: As a whole, information on the Internet regarding LCP disease is of poor quality. However, our findings also encourage patients to utilize HON-code-certified websites due to their significantly higher reliability. Future studies should analyze methods of improving this publicly available information. Additionally, future analyses should examine methods for patients to better identify reliable websites, as well as the best mediums for optimized patient access and comprehension.

What Are the Trends in Women's Representation Among Lead Investigators of Orthopaedic Clinical Trials?

BACKGROUND: Serving as a principal investigator for a clinical trial can bring national visibility and recognition to physicians, and it can have a substantial impact on their promotion and tenure. In the field of orthopaedics, there is a well-known gender gap in terms of representation and leadership. Examining the representation of women in clinical trial leadership may help to inform and enable the design of targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of women principal investigators in orthopaedic clinical trials, and has this changed over time? (2) Are there trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) associated with women principal investigators? (3) What is the geographic distribution globally and regionally within the United States of clinical trials led by women principal investigators? METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials using the ClinialTrials.gov registry and results database provided by the NIH was performed on August 22, 2022. Trial characteristics included principal investigator names and gender, trial phase, type, funding source, intervention, and location (defined by continent and US Census region). Our primary outcome was the overall proportion of women orthopaedic principal investigators over time. We assessed this by comparing the proportion of women principal investigators from 2007 to 2022. Our secondary outcomes were trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) and geographic distribution (globally and within the United States) associated with women principal investigators. Baseline characteristics of the clinical trials were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Fisher exact tests were conducted to evaluate differences in gender proportions based on the included clinical trial characteristics. Univariate linear regression was applied to analyze trends in the annual proportion of women principal investigators over time. RESULTS: The overall proportion of women principal investigators was 18% (592 of 3246), and this proportion increased over the study period. Specifically, the proportion of women leading clinical trials was 13% (16 of 121) in 2007 and 22% (53 of 242) in 2022 (r2 = 0.68; p < 0.001). This trend was also observed when evaluating only US women principal investigators (r2 = 0.47; p = 0.003) and non-US women principal investigators over the study period (r2 = 0.298; p = 0.03). There was no difference in the distribution of trial phases between men and women principal investigators. Most men and women were involved in "not applicable" or Phase IV trials. Similarly, there was no difference in trial status or funding source. However, women principal investigators had a higher proportion of studies involving behavioral interventions (11% [67 of 592]) compared with men principal investigators (3% [74 of 2654]; p = 0.03). The proportion of women principal investigators over the study period by world region revealed a higher proportion of women principal investigators in Asia (23% [88 of 391]), followed by South America (24% [12 of 49]), North America (18% [306 of 1746]), and Europe (16% [136 of 833]). Among all US trials over the study period, the proportion of women principal investigators across the US Census region was Northeast (19% [62 of 329]), South (18% [90 of 488]), West (20% [97 of 492]), and Midwest (13% [22 of 168]). CONCLUSION: Although there has been a notable increase in the proportion of women principal investigators over time, the overall representation remains relatively low. The disparities observed in trial characteristics and geographic distribution of women principal investigators further emphasize the need for targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results underscore the importance of adopting practices and strategies that foster gender equity in the leadership of orthopaedic clinical trials. By establishing mentorship and sponsorship programs, early-career women surgeons can be connected with experienced leaders, cultivating a supportive network and offering valuable career guidance. Additionally, addressing geographic disparities in the representation of women principal investigators can involve the implementation of mentorship and sponsorship programs in regions with lower representation.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients Who Have a History of Prior Radiation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the odds of developing medical and surgical adverse events following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients who have a history of radiation therapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national database to identify patients who underwent primary THA (Current Procedural Terminology code 27130) from 2002 to 2022. Patients who had a prior RT were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes Z51.0 (encounter for antineoplastic RT), Z92.3 (personal history of irradiation), or Current Procedural Terminology code 101843 (radiation oncology treatment). One-to-one propensity score matching was conducted to generate 3 pairs of cohorts: 1) THA with/without a history of RT; 2) THA with/without a history of cancer; and 3) THA patients who have a history of cancer treated with/without RT. Surgical and medical complications were assessed at the 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year postoperative periods. RESULTS: Patients who have a history of RT had higher odds of developing anemia, deep vein thrombosis, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and prosthetic joint infection at all intervals. When controlling for a history of cancer, RT was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, heterotrophic ossification, prosthetic joint infection, and periprosthetic fracture at all postoperative time points. There was additionally an increased risk of aseptic loosening at 1 year (odds ratio: 2.0, 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 3.1). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients who have a history of antineoplastic RT are at an increased risk of developing various surgical and medical complications following THA.

Gender Differences in Reimbursement Among Orthopaedic Surgeons: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Medicare Claims.

INTRODUCTION: Inequalities involving women across orthopaedic subspecialties continue to be highlighted in the literature. Previous analyses exploring reimbursement differences between sexes have not controlled for confounding factors or have been limited by small sample sizes. Our study used Medicare data on a national sample of orthopaedic surgeons to better evaluate these disparities. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Using each provider's National Provider Identifier number, this data set was linked to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System downloadable file and the 2019 National Provider Compare Database. Mean differences were calculated using the Welch t -test. Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of sex on total Medicare payments per physician, controlling for years in practice, practice diversity, clinical productivity, and subspecialty. RESULTS: Nineteen thousand six orthopaedic surgeons were included in our analysis. Of these providers, 1,058 were female (5.6%) and 17,948 were male (94.4%). Male orthopaedic surgeons billed an average of 19.40 unique billing codes per provider and female orthopaedic surgeons billed 14.4 per provider ( P < 0.001). Female orthopaedic surgeons billed an average of 1,245.5 services per physician while male orthopaedic surgeons billed 2,360.7 services per physician. The mean difference in payment between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was $59,748.7 ( P < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression showed that female sex was a significant predictor of lower total yearly Medicare reimbursement ( P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: These findings emphasize the need for additional efforts to help ensure reimbursement differences do not deter women from pursuing orthopaedics. Healthcare organizations should use this information to ensure equal salary negotiating power among their employees while additionally addressing potential biases and misconceptions related to referrals and surgeon aptitude, respectively.

What Is the Geographic Distribution and Density of Orthopaedic Advanced Practice Professionals in Rural Counties? A Large-database Study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced practice professionals, including physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), play an important role in providing high-quality orthopaedic care. This role has been highlighted by projections of nationwide shortages in orthopaedic surgeons, with rural areas expected to be most affected. Given that approximately half of rural counties have no practicing orthopaedic surgeons and that advanced practice professionals have been shown to be more likely to practice in rural areas compared to physicians in other medical disciplines, orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may be poised to address orthopaedic care shortages in rural areas, but the degree to which this is true has not been well characterized. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of rural counties have no orthopaedic caregivers, including surgeons and advanced practice professionals? (2) Is the density of advanced practice professionals greater than that of orthopaedic surgeons in rural counties? (3) Do orthopaedic advanced practice professionals only practice in counties that also have practicing orthopaedic surgeons? (4) Are NPs in states with full practice authority more likely to practice in rural counties compared with NPs in restricted practice authority states? METHODS: We identified orthopaedic surgeons and advanced practice professionals using the 2019 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, as this large dataset has been shown to be the most complete source of claims data nationwide. Each professional's ZIP Code was matched to counties per the US Postal Service ZIP Code Crosswalk Files. The total number and density of physician and advanced practice professionals per 100,000 residents were calculated per county nationwide. Counties were categorized as urban (large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan, medium metropolitan, and small metropolitan) or rural (micropolitan and noncore) using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Comparisons between rural and urban county caregivers were conducted with the chi-square test and odds ratios. Population densities were compared with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A bivariate density map was made to visualize the nationwide distribution of orthopaedic caregivers and determine the percentage of rural counties with no orthopaedic caregivers as well as whether orthopaedic advanced practice professionals practiced in counties not containing any surgeons. Additionally, to compare states with NP's full versus restricted practice authority, each NP was grouped based on their state to determine whether NPs in states with full practice authority were more likely to practice in rural counties. We identified a group of 31,091 orthopaedic caregivers, which was comprised of 23,728 physicians, 964 NPs, and 6399 PAs (7363 advanced practice professionals). A total of 88% (20,879 of 23,728) of physicians and 87% (6427 of 7363) of advanced practice professionals were in urban counties, which is comparable to nationwide population distributions. RESULTS: A total of 39% (1237 of 3139) of counties had no orthopaedic professionals (defined as orthopaedic surgeons or advanced practice professionals) in 2019. Among these counties, 82% (1015 of 1237) were rural and 18% (222 of 1237) were urban. The density of advanced practice professionals providing orthopaedic services compared with the density of orthopaedic surgeons was higher in rural counties (18 ± 70 versus 8 ± 40 per 100,000 residents; p = 0.001). Additionally, 3% (57 of 1974) of rural and 1% (13 of 1165) of urban counties had at least one orthopaedic advanced practice professional, but no orthopaedic surgeons concurrently practicing in the county. There was no difference between the percentage of rural counties with an NP in states with full versus restricted practice authority for NPs (19% [157 of 823] versus 26% [36 of 141], OR 1.45 [95% CI 0.99 to 2.2]; p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: As advanced practice professionals tended to only practice in counties which contain orthopaedic surgeons, our analysis suggests that plans to increase the number of advanced practice professionals alone in rural counties may not be sufficient to fully address the demand for orthopaedic care in rural areas that currently do not have orthopaedic surgeons in practice. Rather, interventions are needed to encourage more orthopaedic surgeons to practice in rural counties in collaborative partnerships with advanced practice professionals. In turn, rural orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may serve to further extend the accessibility of these surgeons, but it remains to be determined what the total number and ratio of advanced practice professionals and surgeons is needed to serve rural counties adequately. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To increase rural orthopaedic outreach, state legislatures may consider providing financial incentives to hospitals who adopt traveling clinic models, incorporating advanced practice professionals in these models as physician-extenders to further increase the coverage of orthopaedic care. Furthermore, the creation of more widespread financial incentives and programs aimed at expanding the experience of trainees in serving rural populations are longer-term investments to foster interest and retention of orthopaedic caregivers in rural settings.

Mark-Up Trends in Contemporary Medicare Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Understanding mark-up ratios (MRs), the ratio between a healthcare institution's submitted charge and the Medicare payment received, for high-volume orthopaedic procedures is imperative to inform policy about price transparency and reducing surprise billing. This analysis examined the MRs for primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) services to Medicare beneficiaries between 2013 and 2019 across healthcare settings and geographic regions. METHODS: A large dataset was queried for all THA and TKA procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons between 2013 and 2019, using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for the most frequently used services. Yearly MRs, service counts, average submitted charges, average allowed payments, and average Medicare payments were analyzed. Trends in MRs were assessed. We evaluated 9 THA HCPCS codes, averaging 159,297 procedures a year provided by a mean of 5,330 surgeons. We evaluated 6 TKA HCPCS codes, averaging 290,244 procedures a year provided by a mean of 7,308 surgeons. RESULTS: For knee arthroplasty procedures, a decrease was noted for HCPCS code 27438 (patellar arthroplasty with prosthesis) over the study period (8.30 to 6.62; P = .016) and HCPCS code 27447 (TKA) had the highest median (interquartile range [IQR]) MR (4.73 [3.64 to 6.30]). For revision knee procedures, the highest median (IQR) MR was for HCPCS code 27488 (removal of knee prosthesis; 6.12 [3.83-8.22]). While no trends were noted for both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, median (IQR) MRs in 2019 for primary hip procedures ranged from 3.83 (hemiarthroplasty) to 5.06 (conversion of previous hip surgery to THA) and HCPCS code 27130 (total hip arthroplasty) had a median (IQR) MR of 4.66 (3.58-6.44). For revision hip procedures, MRs ranged from 3.79 (open treatment of femoral fracture or prosthetic arthroplasty) to 6.10 (revision of THA femoral component). Wisconsin had the highest median MR by state (>9) for primary knee, revision knee, and primary hip procedures. CONCLUSION: The MRs for primary and revision THA and TKA procedures were strikingly high, as compared to nonorthopaedic procedures. These findings represent high levels of excess charges billed, which may pose serious financial burdens to patients and must be taken into consideration in future policy discussions to avoid price inflation.