Is the Distribution of Awards Gender-balanced in Orthopaedic Surgery Societies?

BACKGROUND: Society awards provide visibility and national recognition for physicians. Several studies have found that women were underrepresented as award recipients when compared with subspecialty workforce data. However, to our knowledge no studies have examined the gender distribution of award recipients in orthopaedic societies. Orthopaedic surgery remains among the least gender-diverse specialties in medicine. Particularly in academic practice, the increasing paucity of women with progressive rank may reflect unequal access to the currency for promotion, including national reputation and visibility. Therefore, information on orthopaedic awarding practices may help to identify and address challenges associated with recruiting, retaining, and promoting women in orthopaedics. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Since the year 2000, have women orthopaedic surgeons received awards in proportion to their society membership? (2) Are the awards granted to women equally distributed across the categories of leadership, humanitarianism, education, scientific investigation, resident/fellow scientific investigation, and diversity? (3) Does the gender distribution of award recipients differ for awards bestowed through a blinded process versus an unblinded process? METHODS: Eighteen national, clinically focused orthopaedic societies in the United States were included. These societies offer a combined total of 69 awards; each award was studied from its earliest record through December 2018, resulting in a study period from 1973 to 2018. Each society provided the gender demographics of their membership in 2018. The proportion of women award recipients from 2000 to 2018 was compared with the proportion of women members in 2018 for each society. Awards were also categorized based on the six types of accomplishment they recognized (leadership, humanitarianism, education, scientific investigation, resident/fellow scientific investigation, and diversity), and whether they were granted through a blinded or unblinded selection process. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion of women receiving awards in various categories, and to compare the proportion of women who received awards through blinded selection processes versus unblinded selection processes. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2018, women received 8% (61 of 794) of all awards and represented 9% (5359 of 59,597) of all society members. Two societies had an underrepresentation of women award recipients compared with their society membership. We found that women were not represented proportionally across award categories. Women were more likely to receive a diversity award than a leadership award (odds ratio 12.0 [95% CI 3.1 to 45.7]; p < 0.001), and also more likely to receive an education award than a leadership award (OR 4.1 [95% CI 1.3 to 12.7]). From 1973 to 2018, 17 of 22 the leadership awards offered by societies have never been granted to a woman. Finally, women were more likely to receive awards bestowed through a blinded process than an unblinded process. Women earned 11% (30 of 285) of awards bestowed through a blinded award process and 6% (31 of 509) of awards bestowed through an unblinded award process (OR 1.8 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.1]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The percent of women award recipients was generally proportional to membership overall and in most societies. However, on a national workforce level, the proportion of women award recipients is lower than the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics, which has been reported by others to be about 13%, suggesting that women in academic orthopaedics may be underrepresented as award recipients. Additionally, women were less likely to receive leadership awards than awards of other types, which suggests that women are not being recognized as leaders in orthopaedics. Women were also more likely to receive awards granted through unblinded processes, which raises concern that there may be implicit bias in orthopaedic awarding practices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We encourage societies to examine the inclusiveness of their awards selection processes and to track the demographic information of award recipients over time to measure progress toward equal representation. Creating standardized award criteria, including women on selection committees, requiring the consideration of diverse nominees, and implicit bias training for selection committees may help to reduce bias in awarding practices.

NAB2-STAT6 drives an EGR1-dependent neuroendocrine program in Solitary Fibrous Tumors.

The pathogenesis of many rare tumor types is poorly understood, preventing the design of effective treatments. Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) are neoplasms of mesenchymal origin that affect 1/1,000,000 individuals every year and are clinically assimilated to soft tissue sarcomas. SFTs can arise throughout the body and are usually managed surgically. However, 30-40% of SFTs will relapse local-regionally or metastasize. There are no systemic therapies with durable activity for malignant SFTs to date. The molecular hallmark of SFTs is a gene fusion between the NAB2 and STAT6 loci on chromosome 12, resulting in a chimeric protein of poorly characterized function called NAB2-STAT6. We use primary samples and an inducible cell model to discover that NAB2-STAT6 operates as a transcriptional coactivator for a specific set of enhancers and promoters that are normally targeted by the EGR1 transcription factor. In physiological conditions, NAB2 is primarily localized to the cytoplasm and only a small nuclear fraction is available to operate as a co-activator of EGR1 targets. NAB2-STAT6 redirects NAB1, NAB2, and additional EGR1 to the nucleus and bolster the expression of neuronal EGR1 targets. The STAT6 moiety of the fusion protein is a major driver of its nuclear localization and further contributes to NAB2's co-activating abilities. In primary tumors, NAB2-STAT6 activates a neuroendocrine gene signature that sets it apart from most sarcomas. These discoveries provide new insight into the pathogenesis of SFTs and reveal new targets with therapeutic potential.

Preoperative Versus Postoperative Initiation of Warfarin Therapy in Patients Undergoing Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

The optimal strategy for postoperative deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis remains controversial in hip and knee arthroplasty. Warfarin causes transient hypercoagulability; however, the optimal timing of treatment remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of preoperative versus postoperative warfarin therapy with a primary endpoint of perioperative change in hemoglobin. Warfarin was dosed according to a standard nomogram. No difference in perioperative hemoglobin change was observed. The preoperative group demonstrated higher INRs. Initiation of warfarin preoperatively was not associated with any difference in perioperative hemoglobin change. Larger studies are needed to determine whether the risk of adverse events is increased with either strategy.

Radiation therapy for preventing recurrence of neurogenic heterotopic ossification.

Radiation therapy is commonly used to prevent heterotopic ossification, and the dose-dependent effects of this treatment have been well documented in patients after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the efficacy and dose requirement of radiation therapy to prevent heterotopic ossification of nonsurgical origin have not been studied. The purpose of this retrospective case-control study was to determine the effects of prophylactic radiation therapy on severe heterotopic ossification recurrence, postoperative range of motion (ROM), and wound healing in patients with heterotopic ossification secondary to neurologic deficits. Selection was not blinded, and higher risk patients were generally assigned to the treatment group. Standard doses of radiation therapy did not adequately lower recurrence rates; in fact, there was a higher incidence of heterotopic ossification formation necessitating revision in the treatment group (15.0%) compared to the control group (5.1%). Moreover, patients who received radiation therapy were not more successful at maintaining intraoperative ROM over time. There was a similar incidence of delayed wound healing between groups (12.8% in the control group and 12.5% in the treatment group), and no other negative side effects or complications were observed. These results suggest that the 700 cGy dose of radiation therapy typically used for the prophylaxis of heterotopic ossification associated with THA does not effectively prevent the recurrence of neurogenic heterotopic ossification in high-risk patients. Further studies are needed to determine whether higher doses of radiation therapy will provide more effective prophylaxis for heterotopic ossification.