Fewer Than One in 20 Current Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons Have Obtained National Institutes of Health Funding.

BACKGROUND: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is a key driver of orthopaedic research, but it has become increasingly difficult to obtain in recent years. An understanding of the types of grants that are commonly funded, how productive they are, and the factors associated with obtaining funding may help orthopaedic surgeons better understand how to earn grants. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought to determine (1) the proportion of current academic orthopaedic surgeons who have obtained NIH grant funding, (2) the productivity of these grants by calculating grant productivity metrics, and (3) the factors (such as gender, subspecialty, and additional degrees) that are associated with obtaining grant funding. METHODS: Current academic orthopaedic surgeons at the top 140 NIH-funded institutions were identified via faculty webpages; 3829 surgeons were identified. Demographic information including gender (men constituted 88% of the group [3364 of 3829]), academic rank (full professors constituted 22% [856 of 3829]), additional degrees (those with MD-PhD degrees constituted 3% [121 of 3829]), leadership positions, and orthopaedic subspecialty was collected. Funding histories from 1985 through 2021 were collected using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Grant type, funding, publications, and citations of each article were collected. A previously used grant impact metric (total citations per USD 0.1 million) was calculated to assess grant productivity. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with obtaining funding. RESULTS: Four percent (150 of 3829) of academic orthopaedic surgeons obtained USD 338.3 million in funding across 301 grants, resulting in 2887 publications over the entire study period. The R01 was the most commonly awarded grant in terms of the total number awarded, at 36% (108 of 301), as well as by funding, publications, and citations, although other grant types including T32, F32, R03, R13, and R21 had higher mean grant impact metrics. There was no difference between men and women in the by-gender percentage of academic orthopaedic surgeons who obtained funding (4% [135 of 3229] versus 3% [15 of 450]; odds ratio 0.9 [95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7]; p = 0.80). A department having a single funded PhD researcher may be associated with surgeon-scientists obtaining grant funding, but with the numbers available, we could not demonstrate this was the case (OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.2]; p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Fewer than one in 20 academic orthopaedic surgeons have received NIH funding. R01s are the most commonly awarded grant, although others demonstrate increased productivity metrics. Future studies should investigate the role of co-principal investigators on productivity and the role of different funding sources. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Individuals should pursue both R01 and non-R01 grants, and departments should consider cultivating relationships with funded PhDs. The specific research infrastructure and departmental policies of the most productive institutions and grants should be surveyed and emulated.

Effect of Obesity on Complication Rate After Elbow Arthroscopy in a Medicare Population.

PURPOSE: To use a national insurance database to explore the association of obesity with the incidence of complications after elbow arthroscopy in a Medicare population. METHODS: Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes, we queried the PearlDiver database for patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy. Patients were divided into obese (body mass index [BMI] >30) and nonobese (BMI <30) cohorts using ICD-9 codes for BMI and obesity. Nonobese patients were matched to obese patients based on age, sex, tobacco use, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. Postoperative complications were assessed with ICD-9 and Current Procedural Terminology codes, including infection, nerve injury, stiffness, and medical complications. RESULTS: A total of 2,785 Medicare patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy were identified from 2005 to 2012; 628 patients (22.5%) were coded as obese or morbidly obese, and 628 matched nonobese patients formed the control group. There were no differences between the obese patients and matched control nonobese patients regarding type of elbow arthroscopy, previous elbow fracture or previous elbow arthroscopy. Obese patients had greater rates of all assessed complications, including infection (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, P = .037), nerve injury (OR 5.4, P = .001), stiffness (OR 1.9, P = .016) and medical complications (OR 6.9, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is associated with significantly increased rates of all assessed complications after elbow arthroscopy in a Medicare population, including infection, nerve injury, stiffness, and medical complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III, case-control study.

Assessment of scaphoid viability with MRI: a reassessment of findings on unenhanced MR images.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the accuracy of unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in predicting the vascular status of the proximal pole of the scaphoid in patients with chronic scaphoid fracture nonunions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A database search identified 29 patients with chronic scaphoid nonunions who underwent a preoperative MRI examination and intraoperative assessment of scaphoid viability from 2004 to 2009. T1-weighted MR images were evaluated by two musculoskeletal radiologists. If the proximal pole demonstrated diffusely decreased T1-weighted signal (less than or equal to that of skeletal muscle), the patient was placed in a moderate-to-high risk for avascular necrosis (AVN) category. Otherwise, the patient was placed in a viable-to-low risk for AVN category. Scaphoid viability or necrosis was diagnosed intraoperatively depending on whether punctate bleeding was present. After the patients were classified according to the T1-weighted appearance, the appearance on STIR images was recorded. RESULTS: There were 29 patients (25 male) with a mean age of 21 years. When we compared the MRI results, using only the T1-weighted images, with the surgical findings, unenhanced MRI had a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 55%, 94%, and 79%, respectively, for diagnosing AVN. Increased proximal pole STIR signal was noted with similar frequencies in patients with and without AVN. CONCLUSION: T1-weighted unenhanced MRI is an acceptable alternative to delayed contrast-enhanced MRI in the preoperative assessment of the vascular status of the proximal pole of the scaphoid in patients with chronic fracture nonunions. STIR images were not beneficial in determining proximal pole viability.