Nonphysician Evaluators and Recording-Based Tools in Surgical Skill Assessment: A Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of nonmedically trained evaluators and image- and video-based tools in the assessment of surgical skills in a key orthopedic procedure. DESIGN: Orthopedic surgeons at varying skill levels were evaluated by their ability to repair a cadaveric bi-malleolar ankle fracture. Nonphysician viewers and expert orthopedic surgeons independently scored video recordings and fluoroscopy images of the procedure through Global Rating Scales (GRS) and procedure-specific checklist tools. Statistical analysis was used to determine if the evaluators and assessment tools were able to differentiate skill level. SETTING: An academic tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The surgical procedure was completed by 3 orthopedic residents, 3 orthopedic trauma fellows, and 4 orthopedic trauma attending surgeons. The procedure was independently evaluated by 2 orthopedic surgeons and 2 nonphysicians. RESULTS: Operating participants were stratified by ≤ or >10 bimalleolar ankle fracture cases performed alone (inexperienced, n = 5 vs experienced, n = 5). Expert surgeon viewers could effectively stratify skill group through the GRS for video and fluoroscopy analysis (p < 0.05), and the video procedure-specific checklist (p < 0.05), but not the fluoroscopy procedure-specific checklist. Nonphysician viewers generally recognized skill groupings, although with less separation than surgeon viewers. These evaluators performed the best when aided by video and fluoroscopy procedure-specific checklists. Meanwhile, breakdowns of each tool into critical zones for improvement and evaluator-independent metrics such as case experience, self-reported confidence, and surgical time also indicated some skill differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of using video recordings and fluoroscopic imaging based surgical skills assessment tools in orthopedic trauma was demonstrated. The tools highlighted in this study are applicable to both cadaver laboratory settings and live surgeries. The degree of training that is required by the evaluators and the utility of measuring surgical times of specific tasks should be the subject of future studies.

Development and Validation of a Low-Cost Drilling Model.

Background: Simulation models enable learners to have repeated practise at their own time, to master the psycho-motor and sensory acuity aspects of surgery and build their confidence in the procedure. The study aims to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a low-cost drilling model to train surgeons in the drilling task. The model targets three aspects of drilling - (1) Reduce plunge depth, (2) Ability to differentiate between bone and medullary canal and (3) Increase accuracy drilling in various angles. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted after obtaining ethics approval. We invited Consultants in the field of Orthopaedic or Hand Surgery to form the 'expert' group, and the 'novice' group consisted of participants who had no prior experience in bone drilling. We developed a drilling simulator model made from a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe filled with liquid silicone. This model cost less than US$5. An electric Bosch drill (model GBM 10 RE) with a 1.4 mm K-wire 10 cm in length (6.5 cm outside the drill) was used for drilling. The main outcomes of the study were time taken for drilling, plunge depth, ability to penetrate the far cortex and accuracy. Results: Thirty-one participants were recruited into the study, of which 15 were experts and 16 were novices. The experts performed significantly better for plunge depth (t = -3.65, p = 0.0003) and accuracy (t = -2.07, p = 0.04). The experts required 20% less time to complete the drilling tasks, but it was not statistically significant (t = -0.79, p = 0.43). Conclusions: The low-cost drilling model could be useful in training Residents in the drilling task. It will allow Residents to practise independently at their own time and assess their own performance.

Digital vs Conventional OSCE in Orthopedic Surgery: A Feasibility Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Remote OSCEs (Objective Structured Clinical Examination) are an alternative evaluation method during pandemic periods but they have never been evaluated in orthopedic surgery. We aimed to evaluate whether remote OSCEs would be feasible, and efficient for assessment of undergraduate medical students. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed. Thirty-four students were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups, either the conventional OSCE group or the digital OSCE group. Three types of skills were assessed: technical procedure, clinical examination, and radiographic analysis. Students were graded and they filled in a satisfaction questionnaire for both types of OSCEs. RESULTS: The mean score, out of 20, was 14.3 ± 2.5 (range 9.3-19) for the digital sessions, versus 14.4 ± 2.3 (range 10-18.6) for conventional sessions (p = 0.81). Bland Altman Plot showed that 88% of students scored within agreement. The average global feedback was different for item repeatability, relevance, and OSCEs preference (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0001, and p < 0.0001 respectively). However, they did not report differences for the item concerning the organization (p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: The results of this comparative study between digital and conventional OSCEs showed comparable distance learning scores between the 2 groups, whatever the skill assessed. However, the student's evaluation showed some reticence to conduct again OSCEs remotely.

Immersive virtual reality in orthopedic surgery as elective subject for medical students : First experiences in curricular teaching.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) simulators have been introduced for skills training in various medical disciplines to create an approximately realistic environment without the risk of patient harm and have improved to more immersive VR (iVR) simulators at affordable costs. There is evidence that training on VR simulators improves technical skills but its use in orthopedic training programs and especially in curricular teaching sessions for medical students are currently not well established. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of a VR operating theater as an elective course for undergraduate medical students and to evaluate its effect on student learning. METHODS: An elective course for 12 students was implemented during the summer semester of 2023. Using Oculus Quest 2 headsets (Reality Labs, Meta Platforms, USA) and controllers and the PrecisionOS platform, they were able to train five different surgical procedures. The courses were accompanied by weekly topic discussions and instructional videos. Students were assigned to two groups: group VR vs. group non-VR. The groups were switched after 5 weeks. User feedback and performance development (theoretical and procedural surgical knowledge) after VR training were assessed using three questionnaires. RESULTS: The students highly appreciated the implementation of VR training into their curriculum and 91% stated that they would opt for further VR training. All students stated that VR training improved their understanding of surgical procedures and that it should be obligatory in surgical training for undergraduate medical students. After 5 weeks of training, students in the VR group achieved significantly better results (100 out of maximum 180 points) than the non-VR group (70 points, p = 0.0495) in procedural surgical knowledge. After completion of the VR training the VR group achieved 106 points and the non-VR group 104 points (p = 0.8564). The procedural knowledge for non-VR group after 5 weeks significantly improved after VR training from 70 to 106 points (p = 0.0087). CONCLUSION: The iVR can be easily integrated into the curriculum of medical students and is highly appreciated by the participants. The iVR statistically improves the procedural knowledge of surgical steps compared to conventional teaching methods. Further implementation of iVR training in curricular teaching of medical students should be considered.

Examining differences in trends in the orthopedic surgery match for osteopathic and allopathic medical graduates after the transition to single accreditation.

CONTEXT: The landscape of medical education in the United States has undergone significant changes, particularly with the rise of osteopathic medical students, constituting a substantial portion of medical school entrants. The merger of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) in 2020 opened residency slots to allopathic graduates that were previously historically allocated to osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians. This has impacted various medical specialties, notably orthopedic surgery. Despite an increase in orthopedic surgery applicants, the match rates for DO candidates have faced challenges, raising concerns about the impact of this merger on the future of orthopedic training for DO students. OBJECTIVES: This research aims to analyze the trends in orthopedic surgery match rates for DO vs MD applicants since the single accreditation merger, which began in 2015 with a 5-year transition period that was finalized by 2020. By examining factors such as application numbers, research output, standardized test scores, and program director preferences, the study seeks to identify disparities and challenges faced by DO applicants in securing orthopedic surgery residencies. METHODS: This study utilized publicly available data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) 2018, 2020, and 2022 reports. Data encompassed applicant characteristics, including standardized test scores, research experiences, and match outcomes. The study also incorporated insights from NRMP program director surveys, focusing on interview and ranking practices. The analysis involved comparisons of application numbers, match rates, research productivity, and test scores between DO and MD applicants. Statistical analysis was employed to identify any statistically significant differences among the examined variables for the 3 years included in the study. RESULTS: The research revealed a consistent increase in orthopedic surgery applicants from both DO and MD backgrounds. However, MD applicants consistently had higher match rates compared to their DO counterparts, with the gap narrowing over the years. Notably, disparities persisted in research output, with MD applicants demonstrating a significant advantage in publications and presentations. Standardized test scores, although slightly higher for MD applicants, did not significantly impact the differences in match rates. MD applicants had statistically significantly higher numbers of applicants (P = .0010), number of publications (P = .0091), and number of research experiences (P = .0216) over the years examined. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the scores on Step 1 (P = .5038) or Step 2 (P = .4714) between MD and DO candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in the acceptance and ranking of DO applicants by program directors, the study highlights enduring challenges in orthopedic surgery match rates between DO and MD candidates. The lack of research opportunities for DO students stands out as a crucial area for improvement, necessitating systemic changes within medical education. Addressing this disparity and ensuring equal access to research experiences could mitigate the gap in match rates, promoting a more equitable environment for all aspiring orthopedic surgeons, regardless of their medical background. Such efforts are vital to fostering inclusivity and enhancing opportunities for osteopathic medical students pursuing competitive specialties like orthopedic surgery.

[Orthopedics and trauma surgery in the digital age]. / Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie im digitalen Zeitalter.

BACKGROUND: Digital transformation is shaping the future of orthopedics and trauma surgery. Telemedicine, digital health applications, electronic patient records and artificial intelligence play a central role in this. These technologies have the potential to improve medical care, enable individualized patient treatment plans and reduce the burden on the treatment process. However, there are currently challenges in the areas of infrastructure, regulation, reimbursement and data protection. REALISING THE TRANSFORMATION: Effective transformation requires a deep understanding of both technology and clinical practice. Orthopedic and trauma surgeons need to take a leadership role by actively engaging with new technologies, designing new treatment processes and enhancing their medical skills with digital and AI competencies. The integration of digital skills into medical education and specialist training will be crucial for actively shaping the digital transformation and exploiting its full potential.

Establishing case volume benchmarks for ACGME-accredited orthopedic surgery of the spine fellowship training.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There has been increasing scrutiny on the standardization of surgical training in the US. PURPOSE: This study provides case volume benchmarks for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic spine surgery fellowship training. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of fellows at ACGME-accredited orthopedic spine surgery fellowships (2017-2022). PATIENT SAMPLE: N/A. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported case volume during fellowship training. METHODS: Case volume percentiles were calculated across ACGME-defined case categories and temporal changes assessed via linear regression. Variability between the highest and lowest deciles by case volume was calculated as fold-differences (90th percentile/10th percentile). Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential targets for case minimum requirements. RESULTS: A total of 163 spine surgery fellows were included in this study. Total mean reported spine surgery case volume increased from 313.2±122 in 2017 to 382.0±164 in 2022 (p=.19). Most cases were classified as adult (range, 97.2%-98.0%) over pediatric cases (range, 2.0%-2.8%). An average of 322.0 cases were reported and most were classified as laminectomy (32%), posterior arthrodesis (29%), and anterior arthrodesis (20%). Overall variability in total case volume was 2.4 and the greatest variability existed for posterior instrumentation (38.1), application of cage (34.6), anterior instrumentation (20.8), and fractures and dislocations (17.3). If case minimum requirements for total reported cases was assumed at 200 cases, then all spine fellows included in this study would achieve this requirement. However, if case minimum requirements were assumed at 250 total cases, then approximately thirty percent of fellows (n=49) would not achieve this requirement for graduation. CONCLUSIONS: Increasingly, national societies and accrediting bodies for surgical education recognize the need for standardized training. This study provides benchmarks to inform potential case minimum requirements and help reduce variability during spine fellowship training. Future studies are needed to establish case minimum requirements for spine surgery fellowship training across comprehensive and granular case categories that cover the full gamut of orthopedic spine surgery.

Mental Skills for Orthopaedic Surgery.

Orthopaedic surgery training focuses primarily on the knowledge base and surgical techniques that comprise the fundamental and physical pillars of performance. It also pays much less attention to the mental pillar of performance than does the training of other specialists such as aviators, elite athletes, musicians, and Special Forces operators. However, mental skills optimize the ability to achieve the ideal state during surgery that includes absolute focus with the right amount of confidence and stress. The path to this state begins before surgery with visualization of the surgical steps and potential complications. On the day of surgery, the use of compartmentalization, performance aspirations, performance breathing, and keeping the team focused facilitates achieving and maintaining the proper mental state. Considering the similarities between surgery and other fields of expertise that do emphasize the mental pillar, including this training in orthopaedic residencies, is likely beneficial.

The Utility of the Standardized Letter of Recommendation for Orthopedic Surgery Residency Applicants: A Systematic Review.

Despite widespread adoption for evaluating residency candidates, few studies have evaluated the orthopedic standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR). A systematic review using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed in June 2022. Study design and results from SLOR investigations were compiled. Common outcomes studied were summative rank statement scores and SLOR individual domains. Applicants were rated ranked to match or in the top one-third of rank lists in non-normally distributed frequencies. The association of summative rank statement score with match outcome was rarely studied. Applicants' ratings skew positively, the utility is reportedly limited, and influence on match outcome has been inadequately studied. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):e1-e5.].

The Development And Applications Of Augmented And Virtual Reality Technology In Spine Surgery Training: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the growing global interest in the role of augmented and virtual reality in surgical training. While this technology grows at a rapid rate, its efficacy remains unclear. To that end, we offer a systematic review of the literature summarizing the role of virtual and augmented reality on spine surgery training. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on May 13th, 2022. PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and Embase were reviewed for relevant studies. Studies from both orthopedic and neurosurgical spine programs were considered. There were no restrictions placed on the type of study, virtual/augmented reality modality, nor type of procedure. Qualitative data analysis was performed, and all studies were assigned a Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) score. RESULTS: The initial review identified 6752 studies, of which 16 were deemed relevant and included in the final review, examining a total of nine unique augmented/virtual reality systems. These studies had a moderate methodological quality with a MERSQI score of 12.1 + 1.8; most studies were conducted at single-center institutions, and unclear response rates. Statistical pooling of the data was limited by the heterogeneity of the study designs. CONCLUSION: This review examined the applications of augmented and virtual reality systems for training residents in various spine procedures. As this technology continues to advance, higher-quality, multi-center, and long-term studies are required to further the adaptation of VR/AR technologies in spine surgery training programs.

Perceptions of Preference Signaling in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Survey of Applicants and Program Directors.

INTRODUCTION: To improve transparency between candidates and training programs, a preference signaling program (PSP) was implemented before the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery match. The PSP allows applicants to 'signal' up to 30 programs, informing the program of the applicant's particular interest in interviewing for their available position(s). This study reports the perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants and program directors (PDs) on the effects of preference signaling on the orthopaedic match. METHODS: Electronic surveys were distributed to PDs and applicants. RESULTS: Almost all programs participated in the PSP (90%), and most of the applicants (97.6%) used 25 to 30 of their allotted preference signals. Most of the applicants (67.2%) thought that their likelihood of obtaining an interview was improved at 'signaled' programs but decreased at programs without a 'signal' designation (85.3%). Both applicants and PDs considered preference signaling to be one of the three most important factors for interview selection, along with Step 2 CK score and letters of recommendation. The applicants did not think that their likelihood of matching would improve with fewer allotted signaling tokens (35.2%), and 55.2% of PDs believed 21 to 30 tokens were optimal. CONCLUSION: Preference signaling is highly regarded by applicants and PDs. Signaling a program will likely improve an applicant's chance to interview. The optimal number of signaling tokens remains unknown, although both groups favored a larger allotment of tokens than has been seen in other specialties. Universal guidelines and recommendations for applicants and PDs would improve the utility of preference signaling.

Workplace Based Learning (WBL): An Effective Learning Modality during Orthopaedics Surgical Clerkship: Students' Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the student's perspective about educational and training efficacy of workplace based learning (WBL) during surgical clerkship in Orthopaedics amongst 4th and 5th year medical students. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of General Surgery, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University, Islamabad, from September 2020 to December 2021. METHODOLOGY: The inclusion criteria was fourth and final year MBBS students who had completed their orthopaedic surgery mini-clerkship. The exclusion criteria was medical students who did not attend the orthopaedics clerkship in the study period. The research instrument was a questionnaire based on the principles of experiential based learning. The participants were sent an online questionnaire as well as a consent form through e-mail. The responses were recorded and analysed for descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From the target group, 140 responses were received, 94 students (67%) expressed that workplace environment was conducive to learning and 98 (70%) agreed that their diagnostic and management skills further developed following exposure to the orthopaedic workplace. A short duration of 2 weeks served as a hindrance with 53 (38%) of students expressing that they were not able to effectively inculcate all concepts within that limited time-frame. Moreover, 52 (37.5%) students described limited patient's clerking time. CONCLUSION: Though majority of students were satisfied with teaching and learning strategies, design and implementation of the curriculum at the orthopaedics department; yet, there were significant limitations requiring further evaluation and cooperation by both students and faculty in order to establish ecosystem focusing on experiential learning. KEY WORDS: Orthopaedics, Workplace based learning (WBL), Student, Clerkship, Learning environment.

Comparisons of Procedures Performed in Training vs in Early Practice by Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: The Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) has maintained an accreditation process of orthopaedic trauma fellowships with various requirements including an annually reviewed list of qualifying trauma cases in the form of American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The correlation between these established and monitored CPTs and the actual practices of orthopaedic trauma surgeons has not been studied. METHODS: American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery part II case logs (trauma subspecialty) (2012 to 2018) were compared with OTA fellowship case logs (2015 to 2019). Case logs from 447 surgeons and 166 trauma fellowship programs were compared. Four CPT code categories were defined: complex trauma (OTA required CPT codes, excluding Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] orthopaedic residency requirements), general trauma (ACGME residency required trauma codes), general orthopaedics (nontrauma ACGME residency requirements), and others (codes not included in residency or trauma fellowship requirements). RESULTS: OTA fellows performed a higher median percentage of complex trauma compared with American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery candidates (34% vs. 21%, P < 0.001): Both cohorts performed a similar percentage of general trauma (23%). OTA fellows performed more general orthopaedics (40% vs. 1%, P < 0.001). Several OTA required codes were performed infrequently (0 to 3 during board collection) by most surgeons, and several procedures are being performed that are not included in current CPT code requirements. DISCUSSION: Early-career traumatologists are performing orthopaedic trauma procedures they were trained on during residency and fellowship, with varying complexity. Trauma fellows perform a higher percentage of complex trauma compared with early-career trauma surgeons. Continued surveillance is necessary such that educational improvements can be made to maximize the quality of trauma fellowship education. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Can Artificial Intelligence Pass the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Examination? Orthopaedic Residents Versus ChatGPT.

BACKGROUND: Advances in neural networks, deep learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) have progressed recently. Previous deep learning AI has been structured around domain-specific areas that are trained on dataset-specific areas of interest that yield high accuracy and precision. A new AI model using large language models (LLM) and nonspecific domain areas, ChatGPT (OpenAI), has gained attention. Although AI has demonstrated proficiency in managing vast amounts of data, implementation of that knowledge remains a challenge. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of Orthopaedic In-Training Examination questions can a generative, pretrained transformer chatbot (ChatGPT) answer correctly? (2) How does that percentage compare with results achieved by orthopaedic residents of different levels, and if scoring lower than the 10th percentile relative to 5th-year residents is likely to correspond to a failing American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery score, is this LLM likely to pass the orthopaedic surgery written boards? (3) Does increasing question taxonomy affect the LLM's ability to select the correct answer choices? METHODS: This study randomly selected 400 of 3840 publicly available questions based on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination and compared the mean score with that of residents who took the test over a 5-year period. Questions with figures, diagrams, or charts were excluded, including five questions the LLM could not provide an answer for, resulting in 207 questions administered with raw score recorded. The LLM's answer results were compared with the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination ranking of orthopaedic surgery residents. Based on the findings of an earlier study, a pass-fail cutoff was set at the 10th percentile. Questions answered were then categorized based on the Buckwalter taxonomy of recall, which deals with increasingly complex levels of interpretation and application of knowledge; comparison was made of the LLM's performance across taxonomic levels and was analyzed using a chi-square test. RESULTS: ChatGPT selected the correct answer 47% (97 of 207) of the time, and 53% (110 of 207) of the time it answered incorrectly. Based on prior Orthopaedic In-Training Examination testing, the LLM scored in the 40th percentile for postgraduate year (PGY) 1s, the eighth percentile for PGY2s, and the first percentile for PGY3s, PGY4s, and PGY5s; based on the latter finding (and using a predefined cutoff of the 10th percentile of PGY5s as the threshold for a passing score), it seems unlikely that the LLM would pass the written board examination. The LLM's performance decreased as question taxonomy level increased (it answered 54% [54 of 101] of Tax 1 questions correctly, 51% [18 of 35] of Tax 2 questions correctly, and 34% [24 of 71] of Tax 3 questions correctly; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Although this general-domain LLM has a low likelihood of passing the orthopaedic surgery board examination, testing performance and knowledge are comparable to that of a first-year orthopaedic surgery resident. The LLM's ability to provide accurate answers declines with increasing question taxonomy and complexity, indicating a deficiency in implementing knowledge. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current AI appears to perform better at knowledge and interpretation-based inquires, and based on this study and other areas of opportunity, it may become an additional tool for orthopaedic learning and education.

The Effects of COVID-19 on Orthopaedic Surgery Training Programs in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigates the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education, research opportunities, and mental health in orthopaedic surgical training programs. METHODS: A survey was sent to the 177 Electronic Residency Application Service-participating orthopaedic surgery training programs. The survey contained 26 questions covering demographics, examinations, research, academic activities, work settings, mental health, and educational communication. Participants were asked to assess their difficulty in performing activities relative to COVID-19. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two responses were used for data analysis. Difficulties were experienced in collaborating with others (49%), learning through online web platforms (49%), maintaining the attention span of others through online web platforms (75%), and in gaining knowledge as a presenter or participating through online web platforms (56%). Eighty percent reported that managing time to study was the same or easier. There was no reported change in difficulty for performing activities in the clinic, emergency department, or operating room. Most respondents reported greater difficulty in socializing with others (74%), participating in social activities with coresidents (82%), and seeing their family (66%). Coronavirus disease 2019 has had a significant effect on the socialization of orthopaedic surgery trainees. DISCUSSION: Clinical exposure and engagement were marginally affected for most respondents, whereas academic and research activities were more greatly affected by the transition from in-person to online web platforms. These conclusions merit investigation of support systems for trainees and evaluating best practices moving forward.

Update on Educational Resources and Evaluation Tools for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.

Innovations in orthopaedic resident educational resources and evaluation tools are essential to ensuring appropriate training and ultimately the graduation of competent orthopaedic surgeons. In recent years, there have been several advancements in comprehensive educational platforms within orthopaedic surgery. Orthobullets PASS, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Clinical Classroom, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery Resident Orthopaedic Core Knowledge each have their own unique advantages in preparation for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery board certification examinations. In addition, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones 2.0 and the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Knowledge Skills Behavior program each provide objective assessment of resident core competencies. Understanding and using these new platforms will help orthopaedic residents, faculty, residency programs, and program leadership to best train and evaluate their residents.

Acquisition of Medical Knowledge Varies During Allopathic and Osteopathic Orthopedic Surgery Residency Training.

Currently, little is known about the differences in medical knowledge acquisition between osteopathic and allopathic orthopedic surgery residents. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) performance and training pathway in orthopedic surgery. This was a retrospective cohort study of all orthopedic surgery residents taking the OITE during the 2019-2020 academic year. Comparisons in OITE performance were made with parametric tests. A total of 4407 orthopedic surgery residents were in allopathic (86%) and osteopathic (14%) training programs. There was significant improvement in OITE performance between subsequent postgraduate year (PGY) levels among allopathic residents (P<.001). Among osteopathic residents, OITE performance increased between PGY1 and PGY4 (P<.001) but plateaued between PGY4 and PGY5 (P>.05). At the PGY1 level, osteopathic residents had higher OITE performance than allopathic residents (P<.001), but scores were equivalent at the PGY2 to PGY4 levels (P>.05). At the PGY5 level, allopathic residents had higher OITE performance than osteopathic residents (P<.001). Allopathic medical students scored higher on the Step 1 (248±19 vs 242±17, P<.001) and Step 2 (255±16 vs 250±15, P<.001) board examinations. Medical knowledge increases during orthopedic surgery residency. Disparities exist by training pathway, with osteopathic residents outperforming allopathic residents at the PGY1 level but then underperforming at the PGY5 level. Ultimately, this study provides insights into how resident promotion and training pathway impacts the acquisition of medical knowledge during orthopedic surgery residency. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(6):379-383.].

Impact of Specialty on Cases Performed During Spine Surgery Training in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Two general pathways exist for spine surgery training in the United States: orthopedic surgery and neurological surgery. Previous studies have not quantified the impact of fellowship training when comparing case volumes between these 2 training pathways. This study compares reported spine surgery case volume upon graduation from orthopedic surgery and neurological surgery training. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of recent graduates from orthopedic surgery and neurological Surgery training programs in the United States (2018-2021). The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provided case logs for residents in neurological surgery and orthopedic surgery as well as fellows in orthopedic spine surgery. Case volumes were compared for adult and pediatric spine surgery cases using parametric tests. RESULTS: Case logs from 3146 orthopedic surgery residents, 107 orthopedic spine surgery fellows, and 766 neurological surgery residents were included in this study. Across each cohort, neurological surgery trainees reported more total adult spine surgery cases than orthopedic surgery trainees (514 ± 206 vs. 383 ± 171, P < 0.001). Orthopedic surgery trainees reported more total pediatric spine surgery cases (21 ± 14 vs. 17 ± 12, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Neurological surgery training affords a greater volume of adult spine surgery cases, but orthopedic surgery affords more pediatric spine surgery cases. Identification of relative strengths and weaknesses can help facilitate multidisciplinary training experiences in spine surgery.