Search

Cross-sectional prospective study.To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression domains in comparison to the Spine Oncology Study Group-Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSG-OQ) in patients with metastatic spine disease.While there remains a significant movement toward incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical care, there are few validated PROMs for patients with metastatic spine disease. The SOSG-OQ was designed and validated for metastatic spine tumor patients. However, the use of general symptom-based PROMs, such as PROMIS domains, may reduce both patient and physician burden and improve interdisciplinary care if shown to be concurrently valid.Metastatic spine tumor patients from January 2017 to July 2021 at a single academic medical center were asked to complete PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression domains and the SOSG-OQ. Spearman correlation (p) coefficients were calculated.A total of 103 unique visits, representing 79 patients met our inclusion criteria. A majority were men (59; 57%) and Caucasian (93; 90%), and the average age was 64-years-old (range: 34-87). There were 13 different types of histologies reported, with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer representing 28 (27%), 26 (25%), and 13 (13%), respectively. Additional cancers included renal cell carcinoma, lung cancer, colon cancer, thyroid cancer, large B-cell lymphoma, nonHodgkin lymphoma, esophageal cancer, plasmacytoma, metastatic paraganglioma, and metastatic spindle cell sarcoma. SOSG-OQ was strongly correlated with PROMIS PI (ρ = 0.78) and PROMIS PF (ρ = 0.71), and moderately correlated with PROMIS Depression (ρ = 0.58).PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression appear to capture similar clinical insight as the SOSG-OQ. Spine surgeons can consider using these PROMIS domains in lieu of the SOSG-OQ in metastatic spine tumor patients.Level of Evidence: NA.

MINI Telemedicine in spine care is evolving; patient valuation of virtual care is critical to its utility and longevity. Our mixed methods investigation revealed that patients prefer in person care, particularly for first time visits. However, patients also envision the effective integration of telemedicine and in person care. STUDY DESIGN Survey-based study. OBJECTIVE We performed a mixed methods study involving patients using telemedicine for spine care. We sought to understand factors influencing the utilization and evaluation of this modality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Telemedicine has been integrated into routine spine care; its long-term viability will depend not only on optimizing its safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, but also on understanding patient valuation of its benefits and limitations. METHODS We used a clinical registry to identify spine patients seen virtually by providers at our tertiary academic medical center between March and September of 2020. We distributed an online survey that queried patients' experiences with telemedicine. We performed statistical analyses of Likert-scale questions and a thematic analysis of free-form responses. Sociodemographic data were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS Overall, we evaluated 139 patient surveys. High levels of patient-rated care and patient-rated experience were observed for both in-person and telemedicine visits; however, in-person visits were rated significantly higher in both respects (9.3/10 vs. 8.7/10 for patient-rated care, p

Study design Retrospective, Observational Study. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the return on investment (ROI) of the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) and North America Spine Society (NASS) grants as quantified by the number of publications generated and federal grants obtained (National Institute of Health [NIH], Department of Defense [DOD]). Summary of background data The CSR, SRS and NASS, have awarded numerous research grants over the past three decades. Methods Through publicly available data we identified grants awarded by the Spine Societies. We collected the type of grant awarded, the Principal Investigator information, dollar amount of the grant, number of publications in PubMed from each grant, number of citations, and the publication journal. The NIH and DOD website were queried to determine which grantees subsequently received either NIH or DoD funding. Results From 1989 to 2016: 81 (CSRS), 126 (SRS), and 93 (NASS) grants were awarded. From these grants 206 publications acknowledged receiving financial support from the spine societies. The SRS funded 100 papers, NASS 62 papers and CSRS 44 papers. A total of 32 NIH grants and 4 DOD grants were subsequently awarded. The conversion rate to NIH grants was 15% (n = 12 CSRS), 7.9% (n = 10 SRS), and 11% (n = 10 NASS). The conversion rate to DOD grants was 3.7% (n = 3 CSRS), 0.8% (n = 1 SRS), and 0% (n = 0 NASS). ROI of spine society grant dollars per future NIH and DoD grants were the lowest for CSRS (Dollars Per NIH Grant: $207,434; Dollars Per DoD Grant: $829,734). Male investigators received 85% of CSRS grants, 75% of SRS grants and 83% of NASS grants. Conclusion CSRS grants appear to have the highest ROI of all spine society grants when evaluating subsequent NIH and DOD funding. However, the overall conversion rate to NIH and DOD grants remains low.Level of Evidence: 3.

Introduction The numeric score for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 is one of the only universal, objective, scaled criteria for comparing the many students who apply to orthopaedic surgery residency. However, on February 12, 2020, it was announced that Step 1 would be transitioning to pass/fail scoring. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the most important factors used for interview and resident selection after this change and (2) to assess how these factors have changed compared with a previous report on resident selection. Methods A survey was distributed to the program directors (PDs) of all 179 orthopaedic surgery programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Questions focused on current resident selection practices and the impact of the Step 1 score transition on expected future practices. Results A total of 78 PDs (44%) responded to the survey. Over half of PDs (59%) responded that United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) score is the factor that will increase most in importance after Step 1 transitions to pass/fail, and 90% will encourage applicants to include their Step 2 CK score on their applications. The factors rated most important in resident selection from zero to 10 were subinternship performance (9.05), various aspects of interview performance (7.49 to 9.01), rank in medical school (7.95), letters of recommendation (7.90), and Step 2 CK score (7.27). Compared with a 2002 report, performance on manual skills testing, subinternship performance, published research, letters of recommendations, and telephone call on applicants' behalf showed notable increases in importance. Discussion As Step 2 CK is expected to become more important in the residency application process, current applicant stress on Step 1 scores may simply move to Step 2 CK scores. Performance on subinternships will remain a critical aspect of residency application, as it was viewed as the most important resident selection factor and has grown in importance compared with a previous report.

Study design Literature review. Objective To determine characteristics and trends in published spine research over a recent decade in a high impact, general orthopedic surgery journal. Summary of background data Recent trends in published spine research in a high-impact orthopedic surgery journal are unknown. Such knowledge could guide future research in the field. Methods A comprehensive literature review of clinical and basic science spine articles published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2006 to 2015 was conducted. Articles were assessed for: title, year of publication, authorship, academic degrees of the authors, number of citations, institution of origin, and spine topic. Clinical articles were evaluated for: sex and race/ethnicity of the human subjects, level of evidence, and inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Basic science articles were evaluated for: type of study (animal, cadaver, cell-based), sex of the animals, cadavers or cells studied (male, female, or male and female), and presence of sex-based reporting (defined as reporting of results by sex). Results A total of 203 spine articles were evaluated from the 10-year study period. At least 35 validated or nonvalidated patient-reported outcome measures were utilized in clinical spine research. The most commonly reported PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (24.4%), Short Form-36 Health Survey (23.7%), and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (19.3%). The average level of evidence improved from 3.25 in 2006 to 2.60 in 2015. Only 13.2% of clinical spine articles reported the race/ethnicity of the subjects. Conclusion A consensus regarding validated PROMs in spine research would be valuable. From 2006 to 2015, the level of evidence of spine articles in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery improved. Accurate and complete reporting of patient demographics is an area for improvement in spine research in light of studies demonstrating sex and race/ethnicity-related differences in clinical outcome after spine surgery. Level of evidence 5.

STUDY DESIGN Correlational study. OBJECTIVE In spine trauma patients, we aimed to assess the correlation of patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and Depression scores with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) ODI/NDI scores. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA The ODI and NDI were intended as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients seeking spine care. To date, the PROMIS has not been studied in the spine trauma population. METHODS Between January 1, 2015 and December 13, 2017, patients presenting to a single, level 1 trauma center spine clinic with known spine trauma were identified. A total of 56 patients (52 operative, 4 nonoperative) representing 181 encounters were identified. PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression, as well as the ODI or NDI, were administered to patients. Spearman rho (ρ) were calculated between PROMs. RESULTS A strong correlation exists between PROMIS PI and the ODI (ρ = 0.79, P

Study design Case control series. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of methods to decrease surgical site infections (SSIs) following spine tumor surgery. Summary of background data With the aging population of the United States, the prevalence of cancer and associated metastatic spine disease is increasing. The most common complication of spine tumor surgery is SSI. Methods This a single-institution case-control series of patients undergoing spine tumor surgery from June 2003 to October 2018. Patients were grouped into the following groups: Betadine irrigation and intrawound vancomycin powder (BIVP), intrawound vancomycin powder only (IVP), and patients receiving neither (NONE). The primary outcome was SSIs/wound complications. Results One hundred fifty-one spine tumor patients undergoing 174 procedures meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The BIVP group had 60 patients (73 procedures); the IVP group had 46 patients (47 procedures); and the NONE group had 45 patients (54 procedures). The overall infection rate was 8.6% of all procedures (15/174) and 9.9% (15/151) of all patients. Bivariate analysis comparing patients with and without infections noted the patients with SSIs had significantly higher rates of preoperative radiation treatment (53.3% in infection group vs. 25.5% in noninfection group), P = 0.02. Patients undergoing procedures in the BIVP group had a significantly lower rate of infections (2.7%) than the patients in the IVP (12.8%) and NONE (13%) groups, P = 0.04. Stepwise regression analysis was used to evaluate further factors associated with SSIs. Elevated BMI was significantly associated with SSIs in the model [P = 0.02, odds ratio (OR) 1.14]. BIVP was also protective against infections as compared to the IVP and NONE groups, P = 0.02, OR 0.02. Conclusion BIVP led to a significant decrease in SSI rates following spine tumor surgery. Administration of BIVP is not time consuming and decreased SSI rates. Level of evidence 3.

BackgroundDepression is common and can decrease the likelihood that a patient undergoing an orthopaedic procedure will improve after that intervention. Research at a single institution using the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) showed that the PROMIS Depressi

STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE (1) To assess the correlation between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI) in patients seeking spine care; (2) to assess the correlation between PROMIS PF and the Likert Pain Scale (LPS) in patients seeking spine care; (3) to determine which pain scale best correlates to physical function overall and by number of clinic visits. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA An accurate understanding of a patient's pain level is beneficial in setting clinical and pain management expectations. There is limited work analyzing which instrument best captures pain and its impact on function in patients seeking spine care. METHODS Spine center patients from February 2015 to November 2017 were asked to complete PROMIS PF and PI domains, as well as to report their pain level on a 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain) LPS at each visit. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI; PROMIS PI and LPS; and PROMIS PF and LPS. Fisher r-z transformation method was utilized for confidence intervals (CIs) and to determine significant correlation differences. Analyses were performed for all data, as well as by office visit. Significance was set at P

There is growing interest in value-based health care in the United States. Statistical analysis of large databases can inform us of the factors associated with and the probability of adverse events and unplanned readmissions that diminish quality and add expense. For example, increased operating time and high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) are associated with adverse events, whereas patients on antihypertensive medications were more likely to have an unplanned readmission. Many surgeons rely on their knowledge and intuition when assessing the risk of a procedure. Comparing clinically driven with statistically derived risk models of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) offers insight into potential gaps between common practice and evidence-based medicine. (1) Does a statistically driven model better explain the variation in unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge when compared with an a priori five-variable model selected based on expert orthopaedic surgeon opinion? (2) Does a statistically driven model better explain the variation in adverse events within 30 days of discharge when compared with an a priori five-variable model selected based on expert orthopaedic surgeon opinion? Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify 4030 individuals older than 17 years of age who had TSA in which osteoarthritis was the primary etiology. A logistic regression model for adverse event and unplanned readmission within 30 days was constructed using (1) five variables chosen a priori based on clinic expertise (age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥ 3, body mass index, smoking status, and diabetes mellitus); and (2) by entering all variables with p < 0.10 in bivariate analysis. We then excluded 870 patients (22%) based on preoperative factors felt to make large discretionary surgery unwise to focus our research on appropriate procedures. Infirm patients have more pressing needs than alleviation of shoulder pain and stiffness. Among the remaining 3160 patients, logistic regression models for adverse event and unplanned readmission within 30 days were constructed in a similar manner to the complete models. The five a priori risk factors used in each model based on clinical expertise were selected by consensus of an expert orthopaedic surgeon panel. When patients unfit for discretionary surgery were excluded, the clinically driven model found no risk factors and accounted for 1.4% of the variation in unplanned readmission. In contrast, the statistically driven model explained 4.6% of the variation and found operating time (hours) (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.53) and hypertension requiring medications (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.01–3.76) were associated with unplanned readmission accounting for all other factors. However, neither the clinically driven model (pseudo R2, 1.4%) nor statistically driven model (pseudo R2, 4.6%) provided much explanatory power. When patients unfit for discretionary surgery were excluded, no factors in the clinically driven model were significant and the model accounted for 0.95% of the variation in adverse events. In the statistically driven model, age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01–1.06), men (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.05–2.57), operating time (hours) (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07–1.52), and high BUN (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.35–7.21) were associated with adverse events when accounting for all other factors, explaining 3.3% of the variation. However, neither the clinically driven model (pseudo R2, 0.95%) nor the statistically driven model (pseudo R2, 3.3%) provided much explanatory power. The observation that a statistically derived risk model performs better than a clinically driven model affirms the value of research based on large databases, although the models derived need to be tested prospectively. Clinicians can utilize our results to understand that clinician intuition may not always offer the best risk adjustment and that factors impacting TSA unplanned readmission and adverse events may be best derived from large data sets. However, because current analyses explain limited variation in outcomes, future studies might look to better define what factors drive the variation in unplanned readmission and adverse events.

As consumerism in health care increases, physician-review websites (PRWs) are becoming a common online resource for patients to seek out information. The vast majority of ratings and comments are positive across all orthopaedic subspecialties. Surgeon-related factors that tend to be associated with higher ratings are younger age, having an active presence on social media, demonstrating trustworthiness, spending time with patients, and answering questions. Non-surgeon-related factors that tend to impact ratings include staff courtesy and ease of scheduling.

BACKGROUND Recent studies in a number of surgical subspecialties have demonstrated that financial relationships with industry differ between men and women. This study aimed to determine if gender disparities exist in industry relationships with orthopaedic surgeons. METHODS This retrospective study utilized publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) at OpenPayments.cms.gov. Data were extracted for payments made to orthopaedic surgeons from industry for royalties, licensing, or consulting fees from 2016 to 2017. A physician's profile was used to determine name, gender, practice location, and subspecialty. Years of experience were recorded from publicly available websites. Total number of payments and amounts were compared among men and women, subspecialties, and locations. Multivariable linear regression models were used to determine predictors of total payments and number of payments. RESULTS Royalties and consulting fees were paid to 3,418 individual physicians (11% of 29,996 physicians in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [AAOS] census) and accounted for 88% of total payments. The majority of the total payment amount (99.6%) was made to men, while only 0.4% went to women. Male gender was a predictor of total number of payments (β = 5.17, p < 0.001), as were years of experience (β = 0.15 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10 to 0.20], p < 0.001), Mountain region (β = 2.77 [95% CI: 0.37 to 5.17], p = 0.02), and adult reconstructive subspecialty (β = 4.07 [95% CI: 1.89 to 6.25], p < 0.001). Years of experience (β = 0.046 [95% CI: 0.039 to 0.052], p < 0.001), male gender (β = 1.09 [95% CI: 0.67 to 1.51], p < 0.001), Mountain region (β = 0.35 [95% CI: 0.020 to 0.68], p = 0.04), and adult reconstructive subspecialty (β = 0.33 [95% CI: 0.030 to 0.63], p = 0.03) were associated with higher payments. CONCLUSIONS Male gender, years of experience, Mountain region, and adult reconstructive subspecialty are independent predictors of a higher number of industry payments and payment amount. These disparities in industry payments may contribute to continued inequities in scholarship, academic rank, and leadership opportunities.

BACKGROUND A concern exists about the decline in young orthopaedic surgeons pursuing careers as clinician-researchers. One program designed to address this concern is the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation/Orthopaedic Research Society (AAOS/OREF/ORS) Clinician Scholar Career Development Program (CSCDP). The aims of this study were to better understand the characteristics of CSCDP participants and how the experience effects involvement in career-impacting opportunities and scholarly activity. METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis. CSCDP participants from 2003 to 2014 were recorded, and demographic information was collected. An Internet search was utilized to determine each surgeon's current practice environment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was used to track NIH funding. The OREF and its web site were used to query OREF grant funding. American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) Traveling Fellowship awardees were recorded from the AOA web site. Specialty-specific traveling fellowship awardee information was collected via organization web sites, and direct-contact, scholarly activity, and impact were determined using the Scopus database Hirsch index (h-index). RESULTS Two hundred and thirty-two individuals (229 confirmed current orthopaedic surgeons) participated in the CSCDP. Fifteen (6.6%), 41 (17.9%), 20 (8.7%), and 17 (7.4%) former CSCDP participants have been awarded NIH funding, OREF grant support, AOA Traveling Fellowships, and/or specialty-specific traveling fellowships, respectively. Those involved in any of the career-impactful opportunities post-CSCDP have had higher scholarly activity and impact compared with those who were not involved in the career-impactful opportunities (h-index: 15.9 [standard deviation (SD), 8.1] versus 10.0 [SD, 5.7], p < 0.0001). No scholarly activity and impact differences existed between orthopaedic subspecialties (p = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS The CSCDP appears to play an important role in promoting clinician-researcher careers in orthopaedic surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The CSCDP must continue to adapt to the surrounding health-care landscape to achieve an even better success rate in creating clinician-researchers who will further advance musculoskeletal health and discovery for the betterment of the patients and the profession.