The learning curve for robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in low, medium, and high-volume surgeons.

Background: Robotic systems have been designed to increase the accuracy of implant alignment in total knee and hip arthroplasty. This technology is associated with a learning curve for the operative time to reach peak efficiency in its use. Prior studies done on high-volume orthopedic surgeons have suggested a learning curve of 14-35 cases for robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA). It is unclear if this learning curve is different for surgeons with lower volumes. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from 299 THA procedures done by three different surgeons, with low (1-15 cases/year), medium (16-50), and high (51+) volume caseload. The learning curve was assessed primarily by average operative time from cases 1-20, 21-50, and 51+. Results: The high-volume surgeon had a learning curve of 20 cases, while the low and medium volume surgeons had no significant decrease in their operative time through the cases included in the study (20 and 63, respectively). Conclusions: High volume surgeons have a learning curve of about 20 cases, while low and medium volume surgeons have a longer curve, which was not able to be measured in this study.

Do social media use and patient satisfaction scores correlate with online award recognition among hip and knee arthroplasty specialists?

INTRODUCTION: The physician-patient interaction now begins before patients arrive in the office. Online ratings, social media profiles, and online award status are all components of physician online reputation which contributes to the patient's initial impressions. Therefore, it is important to understand the interplay of these factors and determine if there is a consistent trend indicating the value of this information. METHODS: We Identified all (N â€‹= â€‹160) registered American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) in New England using the https://findadoctor.aahks.net/tool for Massachusetts (MA), Connecticut (CT), Rhode Island (RI), Vermont (VT), New Hampshire (NH), and Maine (ME) on 6/26/2023. We collected surgeon age, fellowship graduation year, and practice type (i.e. Academic or Private). The average 5-star rating and number of ratings were collected from four websites. Any professional-use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube Channel, Personal Websites, or Institutional Websites were identified and a modified SMI Score was calculated. Finally, Castle Connolly Top Doctor, Local Magazine (e.g. Boston Magazine) Top Doctor, or the presence of having any award was noted for each surgeon. RESULTS: We identified several significant trends indicating that online awards were associated with higher online ratings. Social media presence, as determined by SMI Score, was also correlated with higher ratings overall and a higher likelihood of having an online award. CONCLUSION: Given the observed trends and reported importance patients place on ratings and awards, surgeons may consider increasing online engagement via social media and encouraging patients to share their experience via online ratings.

The Relative Importance of Factors That Applicants Weigh When Ranking Adult Reconstruction Fellowships as Well as Their Perspectives on Robotic-Assisted Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Orthopedic Surgery Fellowship programs offer highly specialized training that varies based on the training environment and surgical experience. Additionally, for Adult Reconstruction programs, robotic-assisted surgery exposure has been a widely discussed topic. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative value of various factors to Adult Hip and Knee Fellowship applicants, and their perceptions of robotic-assisted arthroplasty. METHODS: We surveyed 780 applicants who applied to our fellowship to matriculate in 2020 to 2024. We received 158 responses (20.3% response rate). We assessed factors concerning people and perceptions, logistics, salary and benefits, program reputation and curriculum, and surgical experience. Additionally, we surveyed fellows' attitudes toward using robotic surgery and its impact on patient outcomes. RESULTS: The highest-rated factors were Level of Hands-On Operative Experience (4.83), Revision Hip Volume (4.72), Revision Knee Volume (4.71), Multiple Surgical Exposures to the Hip (4.59), and Clinical Case Variety (4.59). Respondents who were postfellowship matriculation placed significantly more value on Exposure to Multiple Attendings with Surgical Diversity (P = .01), and Anterior Hip Volume (P = .04), and less value on Geographic Location (P = .04) and Patient-Specific Instrumentation (P = .02) than prematriculates. Overall, 65% of applicants plan to or currently use robotics, 7.6% do not, and 27.2% said "Maybe". Those who plan to or currently use robotics most cited procedure fidelity, patient-preference, and marketability as reasons to use robotics. CONCLUSIONS: Hands-on surgical experience and revision volume were the most important factors for fellowship applicants. Applicants placed lower importance on robotics exposure and their perspectives on robotics in their future practice were highly variable. Our results will inform fellowship programs and future applicants what previous applicants have valued in their training to help guide fellowship program structure, resource management, as well as recruitment.

Product warranties by orthopaedic surgery companies. Quality control or a new fad?

Introduction: Product guarantees are known to the manufacturing industry, however warranties have been rare in Orthopaedic surgery. Over the last 10 years, select manufacturers of implants have instituted warranties of varying scope, length, and reimbursement. This phenomenon prompted us to investigate the landscape of warranties in Orthopaedics and compare that to other medical industries to better inform their impact on patient care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of patient access material of over 120 Orthopaedic manufacturers including that of the Top 25 grossing companies of 2022 to identify the prevalence and scope of these warranties. Results: We identified eight companies that offer a warranty on implants. The expiration time for the implant warranties ranged from one year to lifetime. The scope of the warranties ranged from coverage of a one-time component replacement to outcome-based guarantees that cover any complications and revisions that may result from the surgery. Discussion: While the use of warranties remains uncommon in orthopaedics, their utility is expanding and evolving. Contemporary warranties appear to have a focus on enhancing product-marketability and improving quality-control.