Women in leadership in orthopaedic sports medicine societies throughout the world.

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery is low compared to other specialties, despite equal numbers of male and female students entering the medical profession. This gender disparity persists across various aspects of orthopaedic sports medicine, such as academic leadership, medical education, and on the sidelines. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive and updated global analysis of female representation in leadership positions within orthopaedic sports medicine and arthroscopy societies throughout the world. METHODS: Publicly available websites for orthopaedic sports medicine societies throughout the world were evaluated. For societies that met inclusion criteria, the following data were collected: types of leadership positions available and breakdown of male and female orthopaedic surgeons in those positions. RESULTS: There were a total of 55 societies analyzed from North America (5, 9.1%), South America (8, 14.5%), Europe (18, 32.7%), Asia (13, 23.6%), Africa (2, 3.6%), the Middle East (3, 5.5%) and Australia (3, 5.5%), as well as 3 international societies (5.5%). North America had the highest percentage of women in leadership positions with 19 of 97 positions (19.6%), followed by international societies with 11 of 92 (12.0%) positions filled by women. The Middle East and Australia had the fewest number of women, with all-male leadership. Globally, female orthopaedic surgeons served in 11 of 181 (6.1%) board of directors positions, 16 of 192 (8.3%) executive committees positions, 17 of 143 (11.9%) committee chair positions, 2 of 18 (11.1%) officer positions, 1 of 12 (8.3%) council positions, and 2 of 7 (28.6%) spokesperson positions. CONCLUSION: While some countries have higher representation than others, the number of women in leadership positions in orthopaedic sports medicine societies throughout the world is significantly less than their male counterparts. While this is a preliminary analysis, future studies should aim to evaluate these trends over time. Providing equitable opportunities for women to rise into high-ranking positions in orthopaedic sports medicine may contribute to the interest of women and other minorities in the field of sports medicine and help improve diversity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulators Show Intraoperative, Surgical Training, and Athletic Training Applications: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: To review published literature to identify and evaluate the effect of virtual reality (complete immersion) and augmented reality (overlay of digital information onto the physical world) simulators on intraoperative use for orthopaedic surgeons, orthopaedic surgical education, and athletic training. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies, published since 2014, that evaluated the role of augmented/virtual reality on intraoperative use for orthopaedic surgeons, orthopaedic surgical education, and athletic training. RESULTS: Virtual reality (VR) simulators provide 3-dimensional graphical simulation of the physical world, and augmented reality (AR) simulators overlay digital information onto the physical world. Simulators can include interactive features (i.e., replication of intraoperative bleeding), haptic feedback, and unrestricted task repetition, and they can record, compare, and analyze performance while being easily accessible and eliminating the need for the presence of a mentor or coach. Four studies reported on VR for intraoperative use, 47 studies on surgical education, and 10 studies on athletic training. Two studies revealed the advantages of using VR simulation during intraoperative procedures, specifically showcasing its benefits for elbow arthroscopy, while 2 studies demonstrated similar positive outcomes for hip arthroscopy. Seventeen studies demonstrated that a VR simulator could be a beneficial tool to assist in surgical education for the knee, while 12 studies found that VR simulation is a valuable tool for aiding in surgical education of shoulder arthroscopy. Ten studies demonstrated that VR simulation improves skills in the operating room. Three studies revealed that individuals with more experience exhibit superior performance on these simulators compared to those with less experience. In the realm of athletic training, 10 studies showcased the potential of VR simulation to play a significant role in athletic performance and injury rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: VR simulation shows benefits in the operating room, is a valuable tool for surgical education resulting in improved skills, and can be used to enhance athletic performance and injury rehabilitation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding that VR simulators can improve surgical outcomes, surgical skill training, and athletic training and rehabilitation could facilitate development and adoption of this advanced technology.

Insufficient Evidence for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Utilizing Suture Tape Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 1-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies to directly compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with versus without suture tape (ST) augmentation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies directly comparing outcomes of ACLR with versus without ST augmentation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The search terms used were anterior cruciate ligament suture tape. Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rates, return to sport (RTS), anteroposterior (AP) laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Five studies (all Level III) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 246 patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation (SA group) and 282 patients undergoing ACLR without augmentation (control group). Patient age ranged from 14.9 to 29.7 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 24.0 to 48.6 months. The mean body mass index ranged from 25.3 to 26.3 kg/m2 and the overall percentage of males ranged from 43.4% to 69.0%. Overall, the graft failure rate ranged from 1.0% to 25.0% in the SA group and 8.0% to 20.0% in the control group. Among the studies that reported RTS rates, the rate ranged from 69.2% to 88.9% in the SA group and 51.5% to 87.5% in the control group. Among all PROs, 2 studies found a significant difference in the Tegner score favoring the SA group. Otherwise, no significant differences were found between groups in terms of PROs. No significant differences in AP laxity were found between groups within any particular study. There was heterogeneity between studies regarding surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation protocols, and reported PROs. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation may experience favorable clinical outcomes compared with ACLR alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

The Addition of a Pericapsular Nerve Group Block for Postoperative Pain Control Does Not Result in Less Narcotic Use After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify comparative studies of patients undergoing the PENG block before hip arthroscopy. The search phrase used was hip arthroscopy pericapsular nerve block. Patients were evaluated based on analgesic consumption, time to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale and visual analog scale). The Modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to evaluate study methodology quality. Results: Five studies (2 Level I, 3 Level III) met inclusion criteria. The 5 studies included the following comparison groups: 0.9% normal saline injection, general anesthesia alone, and general anesthesia with intraoperative pericapsular bupivacaine injection. The 2 randomized controlled trials included in this review reported no significant difference between groups regarding opioid consumption. One of these did not find any statistically significant differences in their secondary outcomes either, including patient satisfaction with analgesia, opioid-related adverse events, or persistent opioid use at 1 week. However, the other 3 studies found significantly lower opioid consumption in patients receiving the PENG block versus the control group intraoperatively, in the PACU, and/or postoperatively. Four studies reported significantly lower pain levels in the PENG block group compared with the control groups, measured differently in each study: 24 hours postoperatively, initial pain score in the PACU, mean score in the PACU, and highest score in the PACU. None of the studies found significantly worse outcomes in the PENG block group compared to the comparison group. Conclusions: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials shows that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who receive a PENG block do not consume fewer opioids for postoperative pain control than patients who do not receive the block. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Virtual Interviews Are Not Adequate Replacements for In-Person Interviews for Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Program Directors and Applicants.

Purpose: To understand the opinions of both orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors (PDs) and applicants regarding the utility of virtual interviews in comparison to in-person interviews following the 2022-2023 application cycle. Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine to applicants and PDs of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs. Questions in the survey included how the virtual format affected the applicants' personal connection to the program, the interview day structure, and costs associated with the interview process. Results: Responses were received from 69 of 93 PDs (74%) and 97 of 266 applicants (36%). Ninety-five percent of PDs (59 of 62) preferred in-person interviews, compared to 79% of applicants (70 of 89). Ninety-eight percent of PDs (60 of 61) and 82% of applicants (72 of 88) thought it was important/very important to interview in-person. Sixty-one percent of PDs (35 of 57) and 49% of applicants agreed/strongly agreed that conducting virtual interviews negatively affected their personal connection with the fellowship interviewee/program. The presence of virtual interviews allowed 50% (43 of 86) of applicants to go on more interviews. Thirty-two percent (18 of 57) of fellowship programs saved up to $5,000 conducting virtual interviews, and 85% (69 of 81) of applicants saved up to $5,000 on travel expenses by attending virtual interviews. Conclusions: Virtual interviews allow fellowship applicants to complete more interviews and presented financial savings for both programs and applicants. However, both PDs and applicants stated that interviewing in-person is essential for applicants to meet faculty and tour the facilities. Clinical Relevance: This study may be valuable to fellowship programs considering continued use of virtual interviews.

Most Faculty Members at the Top Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Programs Trained at Many of the Same Programs.

Purpose: To determine the proportion of faculty members at the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs who completed a fellowship at one of these programs themselves, how many remained at their fellowship training programs as an attending (institutional loyalty), where they most commonly completed residency and medical school, and to characterize their research productivity. Methods: The fellowship programs of current orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship faculty members at each of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs (based on a recent study) were determined by searching program websites or contacting program coordinators. For each program, we determined the proportion of faculty members who completed fellowship at one of these top 10 programs and the proportion who remained at their fellowship program as an attending. Residency and medical school information was found for faculty members on their professional websites. To determine research output, each faculty member's name was searched within the Scopus database and the number of publications was recorded. Results: Data were obtained from each of the top 10 sports medicine fellowship programs. Fifty-eight of 82 (70.7%) fellowship faculty members completed fellowship at a top 10 program. Regarding institutional loyalty, 36 of 82 (43.9%) fellowship faculty members remained at the program where they trained, with one program led entirely by alumni. The average number of publications per faculty member was 130.6, with a range among the 10 programs of 23-355.8. Conclusions: Most orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship faculty at the top perceived training programs completed a fellowship at one of these same programs and maintain high research productivity. Clinical Relevance: Orthopaedic surgery trainees who wish to become faculty members at one of the top orthopaedic sports medicine training programs should aim to match into one of these top programs when applying for fellowship.

The Top 10 Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowship Programs in the United States Frequently Select Fellowship Applicants From the Same Residency Programs.

Purpose: To determine which residency programs the fellows of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs attended and whether residents are selected from the same residency programs multiple years. Methods: The residency programs of current and former fellows at each of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs (based on a recent study) over the last 5 to 10 years was determined by searching program websites and/or contacting program coordinators/directors. For each program, we determined the number of occurrences of at least 3 to 5 fellows from the same residency program. We also calculated a "pipelining ratio," defined as the ratio of the total number of fellows at the program over the duration of the study to the number of different residency programs represented within the fellowship program during that same time period. Results: Data were obtained from 7 of the top 10 fellowship programs. Of the remaining 3 programs, 1 declined to provide the information and 2 did not respond. Pipelining was found to be highly prevalent at one program, with a pipelining ratio of 1.9. Two different residency programs had at least 5 residents match at this fellowship program over the past 10 years. Four additional programs demonstrated evidence of pipelining with ratios of 1.4-1.5. Two programs exhibited minimal pipelining (ratio of 1.1). One program was found to take 2 residents from the same program in the same year on 3 different occasions. Conclusions: Most of the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs have matched fellows from the same orthopaedic surgery residency programs in multiple years. Clinical Relevance: It is important to understand how fellows are selected for sports medicine fellowship programs and to recognize the potential for inequitable bias in the selection process.