OBJECTIVE: Rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons frequently collaborate on difficult decisions regarding perioperative management of immunosuppression in rheumatic disease patients, balancing risk of postoperative infection with risk of disease flares. Current evidence-based guidelines pertain specifically to arthroplasty, thus we sought to understand the trends and common practices regarding peri-arthroscopic use of immunosuppression.
METHODS: Rheumatologists and sports medicine surgeons, from a variety of New York hospitals and serving a broad range of demographics, were surveyed on immunosuppressive medication management in rheumatic disease patients undergoing arthroscopic surgeries. Physicians\' preferences were elicited regarding the use of common anti-rheumatic medications with the lower risk meniscectomies and the higher risk anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions and allografts. Physicians were asked specifically about peri-arthroscopic use of conventional synthetic diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologics, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.
RESULTS: During the survey period, 25 rheumatologists and 19 sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons completed the questionnaire. For lower-risk arthroscopies, rheumatologists favored continuing various csDMARDs (72% to 100%), biologics (50% to 64%) and JAK inhibitors (57%), while a majority of surgeons concurred for all three drug classes (csDMARDs 63%; biologics 53%; and JAK inhibitors 58%). For higher-risk arthroscopies, most rheumatologists preferred that patients continue csDMARDs (63% to 100%) but fewer supported the use of biologics (28% to 39%) or JAK inhibitors (22%). Surgeons were more hesitant to endorse any class of immunosuppressive antirheumatic medications (22% to 27%) around these higher risk surgeries. The rheumatologists were most concerned about surgeries taking place too soon after the last dose of rituximab, recommending these higher risk surgeries not take place for 7.7 ± 8.8 weeks following the last infusion.
CONCLUSIONS: For lower-risk arthroscopies, most rheumatologists but only about half of orthopedic surgeons preferred patients continuing csDMARDs. Approximately half of both groups preferred patients hold biologics and JAK inhibitors. In more involved arthroscopies, most rheumatologists but few orthopedists supported the continued use of csDMARDs, and the consensus was to hold all other immunosuppression when possible. While the duration medications were held perioperatively were somewhat reflective of the current guidelines for arthroplasty, there is a need for evidencebased guidelines specifically regarding peri-arthroscopy immunosuppression in rheumatic disease patients.

暂无摘要。

Orthopedic surgery is a physically demanding specialty. The factors contributing to musculoskeletal injury among surgeons often stem from positioning the patient, using non-ergonomic instruments, maintaining static postures, and performing repetitive movements. This article focuses on exercise techniques intended to combat the most common problematic static postures held during procedures. Each exercise explained in this article is organized into \"preop,\" \"intraop,\" and \"postop\" components. Preop includes strengthening movements, intraop provides postural recommendations, and postop focuses on mobilization and recovery. This article aims for efficient body conditioning, targeting the muscular posterior chain and supporting elements. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e214-e216.].

UNASSIGNED: Foot orthoses (FOs) are prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) and orthopedic surgeons for various complaints. As there are very limited medical guidelines and checklists, the prescription of FOs is often inconsistent. Therefore, our study to evaluate the general prescription behavior and indication experiences with FOs from the perspective of GPs and orthopedists.
UNASSIGNED: A survey was carried out using a questionnaire from October to December 2021. GPs and orthopedic surgeons in northern Germany were included. The focus of the survey was to examine which foot problems would lead GPs and orthopedic surgeons to prescribe FOs and to evaluate what factors these physicians included in their diagnostic analysis. Apart from descriptive analyses, a stepwise linear regression analysis was performed to explore potential associations of the primary outcome variable \'specific effect on the prescription of FOs\', which was introduced to shed light upon the estimated added value of the prescription of FOs.
UNASSIGNED: Out of the 790 questionnaires distributed, 184 questionnaires were returned by GPs (n = 95) and orthopedic surgeons (n = 74) (response rate 23 %). FOs were most frequently prescribed for talipes valgus (96 %) and heel spur (54 %). Diagnostic analysis was mainly carried out clinically. Custom-made FOs (82 %) were prescribed more frequently than prefabricated FOs (6 %). Regular interaction within the prescription process was most commonly with orthopedic technicians (61 %). The estimation of the specific effect on FO prescription was assessed by a mean of 66 % of the participants, 82 % recommended self-exercises as an additional therapy.
UNASSIGNED: FOs are a specific and well-established aid prescribed by many GPs and orthopedic surgeons for a variety of foot complaints. Despite being one of the most frequently prescribed orthopedic devices, the utilization of FOs is predominantly explorative due to a growing but nevertheless still deficient body of well-researched evidence. There is a clear need for a uniform approach to the indication and prescription of FOs among physicians.

BACKGROUND: Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, faculty roles, and among residents in orthopaedic surgery. It has been suggested that having women in leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery may help to increase the gender diversity of residency programs. However, to our knowledge, no study has explored the relationship, if any, between the gender of the residency program director and the percentage of women in the residency program.
OBJECTIVE: (1) Is the program director\'s gender associated with differences in the percentage of women orthopaedic surgery residents? (2) Do women and men differ in the time to appointment of program director?
METHODS: A list of 207 orthopaedic surgery residencies was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website for the academic year 2021 to 2022. The study excluded 6% (13) of programs; 4% (8) were those without ACGME accreditation and those with initial accreditation, and 2% (5) did not have updated 2021 to 2022 resident lists. Descriptive information on 194 programs was obtained from publicly accessible resources from July 2021 through July 2022. The institution\'s website and the American Medical Association\'s (AMA) Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) was used to collect residency program characteristics and resident demographics [ 2 ]. Doximity, Healthgrades, and LinkedIn were used to further collect current orthopaedic surgery residency program director demographics, including gender, age, and education/training history. To determine gender, photographs and pronouns (she/her/hers or he/him/hers) used in their biographies were used first. To confirm this, secondary sources were used including their NPI profile, which lists gender; Doximity; and their LinkedIn profile. Scopus was used to analyze research output by the program directors-using the Hirsch index (h-index) as the primary bibliometric metric. A total of 194 program directors were identified, of whom of 12% (23) were women and 88% (171) were men. Of the 4421 total residents among these programs, 20% (887) were women and 80% (3534) were men. A univariate analysis comparing program directors was conducted, with continuous variables analyzed using an independent-sample t-test and categorical variables analyzed using a Pearson chi-square test. With the numbers available, a post hoc statistical power calculation indicated that we could detect an 32% difference in the percentage of women in a program as significant with 80% power at the p < 0.05 level, whereas we might have been underpowered to discern smaller differences than that.
RESULTS: With the numbers available, we found no difference in the percentage of women in residency programs run by women program directors than in programs in which the program director was a man (22% [125 of 558] versus 20% [762 of 3863], mean difference 2% [95% CI -1.24% to 7.58%]; p = 0.08). Comparing women to men program directors, women had fewer years between residency completion and appointment to the position of program director (8 ± 2 years versus 12 ± 7 years, mean difference 4 years [95% CI 2.01 to 7.93 years]; p = 0.02) and had a lower mean h-index (7 ± 4 versus 11 ± 11, mean difference 4 [95% CI 1.70 to 6.56]; p = 0.03) and number of publications (24 ± 23 versus 41 ± 62, mean difference 17 [95% CI 3.98 to 31.05]; p = 0.01), although they did not differ in terms of their advanced degrees, duration of training, or likelihood of having taken a fellowship.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic residency programs that were run by women did not contain a higher percentage of women residents, suggesting that the gender of the individual in that role may not be as important as has been speculated by others. Future studies should investigate the intersectionality of gender, race, and ethnicity of residents, program directors, and current faculty.
CONCLUSIONS: The fact that women were placed in program director roles earlier in career may also carry special jeopardy for them. Those roles are difficult and can impair a faculty member\'s ability to conduct individual research, which often is key to further academic promotions. Given that and the fact that the gender of the program director was not associated with differences in gender composition of residency programs, we believe that increasing mentorship and access to pipeline programs will help promote diversity in residency programs.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial corroborating evidence that orthopaedic surgery has historically been the least diverse of all medical and surgical specialties in terms of race, ethnicity, and sex. Growing recognition of this deficit and the benefits of a diverse healthcare workforce has motivated policy changes to improve diversity. To measure progress with these efforts, it is important to understand the existing representation of sexual and gender minorities among orthopaedic professionals.
OBJECTIVE: (1) What proportion of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) members reported their identity as a sexual or gender minority? (2) What demographic factors are associated with the self-reporting of one\'s sexual orientation and gender identity?
METHODS: The AAOS published the updated membership questionnaire in January 2022 to collect information from new and existing society members regarding age and race or ethnicity and newly added categories of gender identity, sexual orientation, and pronouns. The questionnaire was updated with input from a committee of orthopaedic surgeons and researchers to ensure face validity. The AAOS provided a deidentified dataset that included the variables of interest: membership type, gender identity, sexual orientation, pronouns, age, race, and ethnicity. Of 35,427 active AAOS members, 47% (16,652) updated their membership questionnaire. To answer our first study question, we calculated the prevalence of participants who self-reported as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or another sexual or gender minority identity (LGBTQ+) and other demographic characteristics of the 16,652 respondents. Categorical demographic data are described using frequencies and proportions. Median and IQR were used to describe the central tendency and variability. To answer our second study question, we conducted a stratified analysis to compare demographic characteristics between those who self-reported LGBTQ+ identity and those who did not. Visual methods (quantile-quantile plots) and statistical tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk) confirmed that the age of AAOS member was not normally distributed. Therefore, a Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine the statistical associations between age and self-reported LGBTQ+ status. Chi-square tests were used to determine bivariate statistical associations between categorical demographic characteristics and self-reported LGBTQ+ status. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to identify the independent demographic characteristics associated with respondents who self-reported LGBTQ+ identity. Further stratified analyses were not conducted to protect the anonymity of AAOS members. An alpha level of 5% was established a priori to define statistical significance.
RESULTS: Overall, 3% (109 of 3679) and fewer than 1% (3 of 16,182) of the AAOS members (surgeons, clinicians, allied healthcare providers, and researchers) who updated their membership profiles reported identifying as a sexual (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer) or gender minority (nonbinary or transgender), respectively. No individual self-identified as transgender. Five percent (33 of 603) of women and 3% (80 of 3042) of men self-identified as a sexual minority (such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer). AAOS members who self-identified as LGBTQ+ were younger (OR 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 0.99]; p < 0.001), less likely to self-identify as women (OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.767 to 0.954]; p < 0.001), less likely to be underrepresented in medicine (OR 0.49 [95% CI 0.405 to 0.599]; p < 0.001), and less likely to be an emeritus or honorary member (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.641 to 0.883]; p < 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of self-reported LGBTQ+ AAOS members is lower than the 7% of the general US population. The greater proportion of younger AAOS members reporting this information suggests progress in the pursuit of a more-diverse field.
CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support standardized collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data to better identify and address diversity gaps. As orthopaedic surgery continues to transform to reflect the diversity of musculoskeletal patients, all orthopaedic professionals (surgeons, clinicians, allied healthcare providers, and researchers), regardless of their identities, are essential in the mission to provide equitable and informed orthopaedic care. Sexual and gender minority individuals may serve as important mentors to the next generations of orthopaedic professionals; individuals from nonminority groups should serve as important allies in achieving this goal.

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effect of adverse events (AEs) on orthopaedic surgeons, illustrate common ways orthopaedic surgeons deal with AEs, and describe solutions to reduce the negative effect of AEs and prevent them from recurring. AEs are common in orthopaedic surgery and increase the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Orthopaedic surgeons may experience negative effects after AEs even when they are not at fault. AEs are linked to moral injury, second victim syndrome, burnout, and disruptive physician behaviors. Many surgeons deal with AEs in isolation out of fear of a negative effect on their professional reputation, potentially leading to increased psychological distress and unhealthy coping mechanisms. Healthy ways to address AEs and improve the well-being of surgeons include destigmatizing psychological stress after AEs and creating a culture of receptivity and peer support.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in diversity initiatives regarding selecting speakers for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting and courses. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of female or underrepresented minority (URM) speakers for instructional course lectures (ICLs) and AAOS courses over the past 2 decades including a surrogate for expertise.
METHODS: For 2002, 2012, and 2022, the academic and demographic information of speakers and the number of publications at the time of their speaking role were obtained and compared by sex and URM status. Owing to the unequal sample sizes between male versus female cohorts and URM versus non-URM cohorts, the Welch t -test was used.
RESULTS: The percentage of ICL and AAOS course speakers who were female increased over time (ICL, AAOS courses): 2002 (2.6%, 3.3%), 2012 (3.9%, 6.3%), and 2022 (11.8%, 15.5%) ( P < 0.001, P < 0.001). The percentage of female AAOS fellows in these years was 2.9%, 4.7%, and 7.4%, respectively. For ICLs and AAOS course speakers, female presenters had fewer publications than male counterparts (ICL, AAOS courses): 2002 ( P < 0.001, P = 0.048), 2012 ( P = 0.003, P < 0.001), and 2022 ( P < 0.001, P < 0.001). For ICLs in 2022, URM speakers had a similar number of publications compared with non-URM speakers. In 2022, URMs comprised 6.9% of ICL speakers and 4% of AAOS fellows. For 2022 ICLs, there were no significant differences in academic institution, position, or region when compared by sex or URM status. For AAOS courses, the percentage of URM speakers increased over time: 2002 (1.1%), 2012 (4.5%), and 2022 (8.6%). For AAOS courses, URM presenters had similar publications compared with non-URM presenters in 2002 and 2022 but less in 2012 ( P = 0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of women and URMs presenting ICLs and AAOS courses has increased over the past 2 decades and exceeded the percentage they represent in the AAOS by over 50%. The female cohort has fewer publications, on average, than the male cohort for all years evaluated, indicating no institutional bias against female speakers.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of training background on the frequency and indications of elbow arthroplasty performed by early-career surgeons.
METHODS: A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination Case List database from 2010 to 2021 was completed. The number of cases performed by surgeons from each individual training background were calculated and compared with the total number of surgeons who completed each fellowship during the study period.
RESULTS: Hand surgeons performed the most elbow arthroplasty cases (132, 44%), but a higher percentage of shoulder/elbow surgeons performed elbow arthroplasty in comparison (15% vs. 7%). The mean number of TEA cases performed by shoulder/elbow surgeons was significantly higher than in other subspecialties (P < 0.01). However, when comparing only surgeons who performed elbow arthroplasty during the board collection period, there was no significant difference between training backgrounds (P = 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS: While hand surgeons performed the most elbow arthroplasty cases, a higher percentage of shoulder/elbow surgeons performed elbow arthroplasty during the study period. The high prevalence of distal humerus fracture as an indication for arthroplasty reflected a shift in indications and was not related to training background.

暂无摘要。