9 results on '"Wick, Joseph B."'
Search Results
2. Profile Of An Orthopedic Surgery Residency Applicant: What Factors Define A Successful Match?
- Author
-
Patel, Om, Van, Benjamin W, Wick, Joseph B, Kong, Shana S, Wick, Katherine, Pina, Dagoberto, Jr., Haffner, Max R, Soles, Gillian L, Thorpe, Steven W, Lee, Cassandra A, Lee, Mark, and Le, Hai V
- Abstract
The orthopedic match is highly competitive, and successful orthopedic applicants havehistorically had high Step 1 scores. Step 1 is Pass/Fail after January 26, 2022. Programs must change applicant assessment, and students must understand how to build asuccessful orthopedic application.
- Published
- 2023
3. A Comparison of Prognostic Models to Facilitate Surgical Decision Making for Patients with Spinal Metastatic Disease
- Author
-
Kalistratova, Venina S, Piña, Dagoberto, Jr, Wick, Joseph B, Fine, Jeffrey R, Booze, Zachary L, Holland, Joseph, Vander Voort, Wyatt, Hisatomi, Lauren A, Villegas, Alex, Javidan, Yashar, Roberto, Rolando F, Klineberg, Eric O, and Le, Hai V
- Abstract
Survival prognosis in an important factor to consider when implementing surgical treatment for metastatic spine disease. Several scoring systems have been developed to help providers predict survival and determine which patients with metastatic spine disease are candidates for surgery.Our primary aim was to determine predictors of 3-month, 6-month, and overall survivorship followingsurgery for metastatic spine disease.Our secondary aim was to identify the scoringsystem which most accurately predicts the short-term life expectancy of patients undergoingsurgery for metastatic spine lesions.
- Published
- 2023
4. Sarcopenia Is an Independent Risk Factor for Proximal Junctional Disease Following Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery
- Author
-
Eleswarapu, Ananth, O’Connor, Daniel, Rowan, Flynn Andrew, Van Le, Hai, Wick, Joseph B, Javidan, Yashar, Rolando, Roberto, and Klineberg, Eric O
- Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences ,Clinical Sciences ,Aging ,Biomedical Imaging ,Prevention ,Clinical Research ,Aetiology ,2.1 Biological and endogenous factors ,sarcopenia ,adult spinal deformity ,proximal junctional kyphosis ,proximal junctional failure ,revision ,degenerative ,Clinical sciences - Abstract
Study designRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesSarcopenia is a risk factor for medical complications following spine surgery. However, the role of sarcopenia as a risk factor for proximal junctional disease (PJD) remains undefined. This study evaluates whether sarcopenia is an independent predictor of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.MethodsASD patients who underwent thoracic spine to pelvis fusion with 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up were reviewed for development of PJK and PJD. Average psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative axial computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at L4 was recorded. Previously described PJD risk factors were assessed for each patient, and multivariate linear regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for PJK and PJF. Disease-specific thresholds were calculated for sarcopenia based on psoas cross-sectional area.ResultsOf 32 patients, PJK and PJF occurred in 20 (62.5%) and 12 (37.5%), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated psoas cross-sectional area to be the most powerful independent predictor of PJK (P = .02) and PJF (P = .009). Setting ASD disease-specific psoas cross-sectional area thresholds of
- Published
- 2022
5. What is the Trend in Representation of Women and Under-represented Minorities in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency?
- Author
-
Haffner, Max R, Van, Benjamin W, Wick, Joseph B, and Le, Hai V
- Subjects
Patient Safety ,Quality Education ,Adult ,Databases ,Factual ,Education ,Medical ,Graduate ,Female ,Humans ,Internship and Residency ,Longitudinal Studies ,Male ,Minority Groups ,Orthopedics ,Physicians ,Women ,Retrospective Studies ,Specialties ,Surgical ,United States ,Clinical Sciences - Abstract
BackgroundOrthopaedic surgery training programs have lagged behind other surgical specialties in increasing their representation of women and people from under-represented minority (URM) groups. Comparative data between orthopaedic surgery and other specialties are needed to help identify solutions to closing the diversity gap.Questions/purposes(1) Which surgical specialties have the greatest representation of women residents and residents from URM groups? (2) How have the proportions of women residents and residents from URM groups changed across the surgical specialties during the past decade?MethodsThis was a retrospective evaluation of a large, longitudinally maintained survey database. Resident data by gender and ethnicity were retrieved from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Books for the 2011 to 2012 through 2019 to 2020 academic years. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education database is updated annually; thus, it is the most up-to-date and complete database available for gender and ethnicity data for all surgical residents. Data were obtained and analyzed for seven different surgical specialties: orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, general surgery, and urology. No sampling was necessary, and thus descriptive statistics of the data were completed. Because the entire population of residents was included for the period of time in question, no statistical comparisons were made, and the reported differences represent absolute differences between the groups for these periods. Linear regression analyses were performed to estimate the annual growth rates of women residents and residents from URM groups in each specialty.ResultsAmong the seven surgical specialties, representation of women residents increased from 28% (4640 of 16,854) of residents in 2012 to 33% (6879 of 20,788) in 2020. Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest representation of women residents every year, with women residents comprising 16% of residents (700 of 4342) in 2020. Among the seven surgical specialties, representation of residents from URM groups increased from 8.1% (1362 of 16,854) in 2012 to 9.7% (2013 of 20,788) in 2020. In 2020, the representation of residents from URM groups in orthopaedic surgery was 7.7% (333 of 4342). In 2020, general surgery had the highest representation of women residents (42%; 3696 of 8809) as well as residents from URM groups (12%; 1065 of 8809). Plastic surgery (1.46% per year) and general surgery (0.95% per year) had larger annual growth rates of women residents than the other specialties did. In each surgical specialty, the annual growth rate of residents from URM groups was insignificant.ConclusionDuring the past decade, there was only a small increase in the representation of women in orthopaedic surgery, while the representation of people from URM groups did not change. In contrast, by 2020, general surgery had become the most diverse among the seven surgical specialties. To increase diversity in our field, we need to evaluate and implement some of the effective interventions that have helped general surgery become the diverse surgical specialty that it is today.Clinical relevanceGeneral surgery has substantially reduced gender and ethnic disparities that existed in the past, while those in orthopaedic surgery still persist. General surgery residencies have implemented a holistic review of resident applications and longitudinal mentoring programs to successfully address these disparities. Orthopaedic surgery programs should consider placing less emphasis on United States Medical Licensing Examination score thresholds and more weight on applicants' non-academic attributes, and put more efforts into targeted longitudinal mentorship programs, some of which should be led by non-minority faculty.
- Published
- 2021
6. Efficacy, Cost, and Complications of Demineralized Bone Matrix in Instrumented Lumbar Fusion: Comparison With rhBMP-2
- Author
-
Eleswarapu, Ananth, Rowan, F Andrew, Le, Hai, Wick, Joseph B, Roberto, Rolando F, Javidan, Yashar, and Klineberg, Eric O
- Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences ,Clinical Sciences ,Clinical Research ,Musculoskeletal ,lumbar fusion ,biologics ,bone morphogenic protein ,complications ,pseudarthrosis ,demineralized bone matrix ,interbody fusion ,posterolateral lumbar fusion ,Clinical sciences - Abstract
Study designRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesTo evaluate demineralized bone matrix as an adjunct for instrumented lumbar spine fusion compared with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).MethodsClinical and radiographic review was performed of 43 patients with degenerative spine disease treated with posterolateral spinal fusion with or without posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Final analysis included sixteen patients treated with demineralized bone matrix (DBM; Accell Evo3, SeaSpine) compared with a retrospective matched group of 21 patients treated with rhBMP-2 (rhBMP-2, Infuse, Medtronic). All patients were followed for 24 months. Fusion was evaluated by computed tomography and/or x-ray. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form 12 (SF-12).ResultsOverall fusion rate, including posterolateral and/or interbody fusion, was 100% for both groups, though the fusion rates in the posterolateral space alone were 93.5% and 100% for the DBM and rhBMP-2 groups, respectively. Clinical outcomes were similar between groups, with the DBM group showing greater improvement in ODI. The rhBMP-2 group showed higher rates of radiographic complications with 7 of 21 patients (33.3%) demonstrating either adjacent level fusion or ectopic bone formation, compared with zero in the DBM group. Average biologic cost per level was $1522 for DBM and $3505 for rhBMP-2.ConclusionsDBM and rhBMP-2 demonstrated similar radiographic and clinical outcomes in instrumented lumbar fusions. rhBMP-2 was associated with higher rates of radiographic complications and significantly higher costs.
- Published
- 2021
7. Efficacy, Cost, and Complications of Demineralized Bone Matrix in Instrumented Lumbar Fusion: Comparison With rhBMP-2.
- Author
-
Eleswarapu, Ananth, Rowan, F Andrew, Le, Hai, Wick, Joseph B, Roberto, Rolando F, Javidan, Yashar, and Klineberg, Eric O
- Subjects
biologics ,bone morphogenic protein ,complications ,demineralized bone matrix ,interbody fusion ,lumbar fusion ,posterolateral lumbar fusion ,pseudarthrosis ,Clinical Research ,Musculoskeletal - Abstract
Study designRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesTo evaluate demineralized bone matrix as an adjunct for instrumented lumbar spine fusion compared with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).MethodsClinical and radiographic review was performed of 43 patients with degenerative spine disease treated with posterolateral spinal fusion with or without posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Final analysis included sixteen patients treated with demineralized bone matrix (DBM; Accell Evo3, SeaSpine) compared with a retrospective matched group of 21 patients treated with rhBMP-2 (rhBMP-2, Infuse, Medtronic). All patients were followed for 24 months. Fusion was evaluated by computed tomography and/or x-ray. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form 12 (SF-12).ResultsOverall fusion rate, including posterolateral and/or interbody fusion, was 100% for both groups, though the fusion rates in the posterolateral space alone were 93.5% and 100% for the DBM and rhBMP-2 groups, respectively. Clinical outcomes were similar between groups, with the DBM group showing greater improvement in ODI. The rhBMP-2 group showed higher rates of radiographic complications with 7 of 21 patients (33.3%) demonstrating either adjacent level fusion or ectopic bone formation, compared with zero in the DBM group. Average biologic cost per level was $1522 for DBM and $3505 for rhBMP-2.ConclusionsDBM and rhBMP-2 demonstrated similar radiographic and clinical outcomes in instrumented lumbar fusions. rhBMP-2 was associated with higher rates of radiographic complications and significantly higher costs.
- Published
- 2021
8. Does L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Improve Sagittal Alignment or Fusion Rates in Long Segment Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity?
- Author
-
Meyers, Andrew J, Wick, Joseph B, Rodnoi, Pope, Khan, Ahsan, and Klineberg, Eric O
- Subjects
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences ,Clinical Sciences ,Clinical Research ,lumbar interbody fusion ,pseudarthrosis ,sagittal balance ,sagittal alignment ,deformity ,scoliosis ,degenerative ,failed back surgery ,Clinical sciences - Abstract
Study designRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesTo assess whether the addition of L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) improves global sagittal alignment and fusion rates in patients undergoing multilevel spinal deformity surgery.MethodsTwo-year radiographic outcomes, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and T1 pelvic angle; hardware complications; and nonunion/pseudarthrosis rates were compared between patients who underwent lumbosacral fusion at 4 or more vertebral levels with and without L5-S1 ALIF between November 2003 and September 2016.ResultsA total of 51 patients who underwent fusion involving a mean of 11.1 levels with minimum 2-year postoperative radiographic follow-up data were included. Patients who underwent L5-S1 ALIF did not have significant improvement in global sagittal alignment parameters and demonstrated a trend toward a higher rate of nonunion and hardware failure.ConclusionsL5-S1 ALIF did not confer significant benefit in terms of global sagittal alignment and fusion rates in patients undergoing multilevel lumbosacral fusion. Given these results and that L5-S1 ALIF is associated with increased surgical morbidity, surgeons should be judicious in including L5-S1 ALIF in large multilevel constructs.
- Published
- 2021
9. Does L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Improve Sagittal Alignment or Fusion Rates in Long Segment Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity?
- Author
-
Meyers, Andrew J, Wick, Joseph B, Rodnoi, Pope, Khan, Ahsan, and Klineberg, Eric O
- Subjects
deformity ,degenerative ,failed back surgery ,lumbar interbody fusion ,pseudarthrosis ,sagittal alignment ,sagittal balance ,scoliosis - Abstract
Study designRetrospective cohort study.ObjectivesTo assess whether the addition of L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) improves global sagittal alignment and fusion rates in patients undergoing multilevel spinal deformity surgery.MethodsTwo-year radiographic outcomes, including lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and T1 pelvic angle; hardware complications; and nonunion/pseudarthrosis rates were compared between patients who underwent lumbosacral fusion at 4 or more vertebral levels with and without L5-S1 ALIF between November 2003 and September 2016.ResultsA total of 51 patients who underwent fusion involving a mean of 11.1 levels with minimum 2-year postoperative radiographic follow-up data were included. Patients who underwent L5-S1 ALIF did not have significant improvement in global sagittal alignment parameters and demonstrated a trend toward a higher rate of nonunion and hardware failure.ConclusionsL5-S1 ALIF did not confer significant benefit in terms of global sagittal alignment and fusion rates in patients undergoing multilevel lumbosacral fusion. Given these results and that L5-S1 ALIF is associated with increased surgical morbidity, surgeons should be judicious in including L5-S1 ALIF in large multilevel constructs.
- Published
- 2021
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.