The Estimated Cost of Maintenance of Certification.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is a controversial topic in medicine for many different reasons. Studies have suggested that there may be associations between fewer negative outcomes and participation in MOC. However, MOC still remains controversial because of its cost. We sought to determine the estimated cost of MOC to the average orthopaedic surgeon, including fees and time cost, defined as the market value of the physician's time. METHODS: We calculated the total cost of MOC to be the sum of the fees required for applications, examinations, and other miscellaneous fees as well as the time cost to the physician and staff. Costs were calculated for the oral, written, and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Web-based Longitudinal Assessment (ABOS WLA) MOC pathways based on the responses of 33 orthopaedic surgeons to a survey sent to a state orthopaedic society. RESULTS: We calculated the average orthopaedic surgeon's total cost in time and fees over the decade-long period to be $71,440.61 ($7,144.06 per year) for the oral examination MOC pathway and $80,391.55 ($8,039.16 per year) for the written examination pathway. We calculated the cost of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery web-based examination pathway to be $69,721.04 ($6,972.10 per year). CONCLUSIONS: The actual cost of MOC is much higher than just the fees paid to organizations providing services. The majority of the cost comes in the form of time cost to the physician. The ABOS WLA was implemented to alleviate the anxiety of a high-stakes examination and to encourage efficient longitudinal learning. We found that the ABOS WLA pathway does save time and money when compared with the written examination pathway when review courses and study periods are taken. We believe that future policy changes should focus on decreasing physician time spent completing MOC requirements, and decreasing the cost of these requirements, while preserving the model of continued evidence-based medical education.

How Long Will It Take to Reach Gender Parity in Orthopaedic Surgery in the United States? An Analysis of the National Provider Identifier Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have evaluated how the proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery has changed over time, these analyses have been limited by small sample sizes, have primarily used data on residents, and have not included information on growth across subspecialties and geographic regions. QUESTION/PURPOSE: We used the National Provider Identifier registry to ask: How have the (1) overall, (2) regional, and (3) subspecialty percentages of women among all currently practicing orthopaedic providers changed over time in the United States? METHODS: The National Provider Identifier Registry of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was queried for all active providers with taxonomy codes pertaining to orthopaedic subspecialties as of April 2020. Women orthopaedic surgeons were identified among all physicians with subspecialty taxonomy codes. As all providers are required to provide a gender when applying for an NPI, all providers with queried taxonomy codes additionally had gender classification. Our final cohort consisted of 31,296 practicing orthopaedic surgeons, of whom 8% (2363 of 31,296) were women. A total of 11,714 (37%) surgeons possessed taxonomy codes corresponding with a specific orthopaedic subspecialty. A univariate linear regression analysis was used to analyze trends in the annual proportions of women who are active orthopaedic surgeons based on NPI enumeration dates. Specifically, annual proportions were defined using cross-sections of the NPI registry on December 31 of each year. Linear regression was similarly used to evaluate changes in the annual proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across United States Census regions and divisions, as well as orthopaedic subspecialties. The national growth rate was then projected forward to determine the year at which the representation of women orthopaedic surgeons would achieve parity with the proportion of all women physicians (36.3% or 340,018 of 936,254, as determined by the 2019 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile) and the proportion of all women in the United States (50.8% or 166,650,550 of 328,239,523 as determined by 2019 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau). Gender parity projections along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Holt-Winters forecasting algorithm. The proportions of women physicians and women in the United States were assumed to remain fixed at 2019 values of 36.3% and 50.8%, respectively. RESULTS: There was a national increase in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons between 2010 and 2019 (r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001) at a compound annual growth rate of 2%. Specifically, the national proportion of orthopaedic surgeons who were women increased from 6% (1670 of 26,186) to 8% (2350 of 30,647). Assuming constant growth at this rate following 2019, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession (that is, to achieve 36.3% women in orthopaedic surgery) is projected to be 217 years, or by the year 2236. Likewise, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall US population (which is 50.8% women) is projected to be 326 years, or by the year 2354. During our study period, there were increases in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across US Census regions. The lowest growth was in the West (17%) and the South (19%). Similar growth was demonstrated across census divisions. In each orthopaedic subspecialty, we found increases in the proportion of women surgeons throughout the study period. Adult reconstruction (0%) and spine surgery (1%) had the lowest growth. CONCLUSION: We calculate that at the current rate of change, it will take more than 200 years for orthopaedic surgery to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession. Although some regions and subspecialties have grown at comparably higher rates, collectively, there has been minimal growth across all domains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given this meager growth, we believe that substantive changes must be made across all levels of orthopaedic education and leadership to steepen the current curve. These include mandating that all medical school curricula include dedicated exposure to orthopaedic surgery to increase the number of women coming through the orthopaedic pipeline. Additionally, we believe the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual programs should require specific benchmarks for the proportion of orthopaedic faculty and fellowship program directors, as well as for the proportion of incoming trainees, who are women. Furthermore, we believe there should be a national effort led by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and orthopaedic subspecialty societies to foster the academic development of women in orthopaedic surgery while recruiting more women into leadership positions. Future analyses should evaluate the efficacy of diversity efforts among other surgical specialties that have achieved or made greater strides toward gender parity, as well as how these programs can be implemented into orthopaedic surgery.

Evaluación de los resultados en el tratamiento de los pacientes con fracturas de pilón tibial / Outcomes assessment in the treatment of patients with tibial pylon fractures

RESUMEN Introducción: las fracturas de pilón tibial son un desafío para el cirujano y actualmente existe controversia en cuanto a su tratamiento. Objetivo: evaluar los resultados del tratamiento aplicado. Materiales y métodos: se realizó un estudio observacional, descriptivo, longitudinal, con el universo de estudio de todos los pacientes que fueron atendidos y tratados con fractura de pilón tibial desde el 1 de enero de 2015 al 31 de diciembre de 2016. Se seleccionó una muestra de 27 pacientes. Resultados: hubo un predominio del sexo masculino (78 %), y del grupo de edades de 40 a 49 años para ambos sexos (37 %). Prevalecieron las fracturas producidas por accidentes de tránsito, con 59 %. Las fracturas cerradas fueron las más representadas, con 78 %. El 67 % de los pacientes no presentaron lesiones asociadas y predominaron las fracturas tipo II en el 55 % del total. Se aplicó tratamiento quirúrgico a un 74 % y se logró la consolidación en un 78 % de los casos antes de las 16 semanas. Antes de las 20 semanas se le indicó el apoyo al 78 % de los casos. Se complicaron 13 pacientes, para un 48 % del total. A pesar de ello, como resultado final, fueron evaluados de excelente y bien el 63 % de los pacientes. Conclusiones: la fractura de pilón tibial constituye una lesión de muy difícil manejo para el cirujano traumatólogo de hoy (AU).

ABSTRACT Introduction: tibial pylon fractures are a challenge for the surgeon surgery and currently there is a controversy regarding their treatment. Objective: to assess the outcomes of the applied treatment. Materials and methods: an observational, descriptive, longitudinal study was carried out with the study universe of all the patients who were attended and treated with tibial pylon fracture from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2016. A sample composed by 27 patients was chosen. Results: male sex (78 %) and both-sexes 40-49 age group (37 %) predominated. There was a predominance of fractures caused by traffic accidents with 59 %, being closed fractures the most represented ones, with 78 %. 67 % of the patients did not present associated injuries, being type II fractures predominant in 55 % of the total. 74 % of the cases underwent surgery, achieving consolidation in 78 % of the cases before 16 weeks. Before 20 weeks, 78 % of the cases were indicated to set on their foot, and 13 patients had complications, representing 48 % of the total. In spite of this, 63 % of the patients were evaluated as excellent and well as final outcome. Conclusions: the tibial pylon fracture is an injury of very difficult handling for the today's orthopedic surgeon (AU).

Evaluation of Spanish Language Proficiency and Resources Available in Academic Pediatric Orthopaedic Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Given the rapidly increasing population of Spanish-speaking patients in the United States, medical providers must have the capability to effectively communicate both with pediatric patients and their caregivers. The purpose of this study was to query the Spanish language proficiency of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons, assess the educational resources available to Spanish-speaking patients and their families, and identify the barriers to care at academic pediatric orthopaedic centers. METHODS: The Web sites of medical centers within the United States that have pediatric orthopaedic surgery fellowships recognized by the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) were accessed. Web sites were investigated for a health library as well as the availability of interpreter services. Profiles of attending surgeons within each Pediatric Orthopaedic Department were evaluated for evidence of Spanish proficiency as well as educational qualifications. Centers were contacted by phone to determine if the resources and physicians who could converse in Spanish were different than what was readily available online and if automated instructions in Spanish or a person who could converse in Spanish were available. RESULTS: Forty-six centers with 44 fellowship programs were identified. The profiles of 12 of 334 (3.6%) surgeons who completed pediatric orthopaedic fellowships indicated Spanish proficiency. Seventeen physicians (5.1%) were identified as proficient in Spanish after phone calls. Thirty-eight pediatric orthopaedic centers (82.6%) noted interpreter service availability online, although services varied from around-the-clock availability of live interpreters to interpreter phones. When contacted by phone, 45 of 46 centers (97.8%) confirmed the availability of any interpreter service for both inpatient and outpatient settings. Sixteen centers (34.8%) had online information on orthopaedic conditions or surgical care translated into Spanish. Twenty centers (43.5%) did not have automated phone messages in Spanish or live operators that spoke Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: There is a scarcity of surgical providers in pediatric orthopaedic centers proficient in Spanish, demonstrating a large discrepancy with the growing Hispanic population. Interpreter services are widely available, although there is variability in the services provided. Considerable barriers exist to Spanish-speaking patients who attempt to access care by phone or online.

Scholarly Success of Orthopaedic Surgeons Participating in the Clinician Scholar Career Development Program.

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.

Orthopaedic trauma surgeons and direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of learning curve at a level I academic institution.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty has increased over recent years; however, the potential for substantial complications exists, especially during the surgeon's learning curve. We evaluated the change in various metrics to help identify a single surgeon's learning curve. Additionally, we examined whether the learning curve was different for primarily arthroplasty versus trauma-trained surgeons. METHODS: We reported outcomes from the first 50 total hip arthroplasties performed through a direct anterior approach by a trauma fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon. Intraoperative and post-operative clinical outcomes were evaluated, including length of procedure, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, disposition to home versus care facility, need for blood transfusion, and complications. Previous reported learning curve outcomes were analysed with a comparison between those who are primarily arthroplasty specialists versus those who include hip arthroplasty as only a portion of their practice. RESULTS: A significant difference in surgical time from 135 to 113 min was observed between the first 25 cases and the last 25. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury rates decreased but not to a significant degree. Among reported learning curves, surgical time was significantly lower among fellowship-trained arthroplasty specialists when compared with other surgeons. CONCLUSION: Our data support that surgeons who perform primarily joint arthroplasty will likely have a decreased surgical time, but similar EBL compared to those who include arthroplasty as only a portion of their practice, however, a number of confounding variables do exist, and additional investigation is warranted.

Assessment of Surgical Treatment Strategies for Moderate to Severe Cervical Spinal Deformity Reveals Marked Variation in Approaches, Osteotomies, and Fusion Levels.

OBJECTIVE: Although previous reports suggest that surgery can improve the pain and disability of cervical spinal deformity (CSD), techniques are not standardized. Our objective was to assess for consensus on recommended surgical plans for CSD treatment. METHODS: Eighteen CSD cases were assembled, including a clinical vignette, cervical imaging (radiography, computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging), and full-length standing radiography. Fourteen deformity surgeons (10 orthopedic, 4 neurosurgery) were queried regarding recommended surgical plans. RESULTS: There was marked variation in treatment plans across all deformity types. Even for the least complex deformities (moderate midcervical apex kyphosis), there was lack of agreement on approach (50% combined anterior-posterior, 25% anterior only, 25% posterior only), number of anterior (range, 2-6) and posterior (range, 4-16) fusion levels, and types of osteotomies. As the kyphosis apex moved caudally (cervical-thoracic junction/upper thoracic spine) and for cases with chin-on-chest kyphosis, >80% of surgeons agreed on a posterior-only approach and >70% recommended a pedicle subtraction osteotomy or vertebral column resection, but the range in number of anterior (4-8) and posterior (4-27) fusion levels was exceptionally broad. Cases of cervical/cervical-thoracic scoliosis had the least agreement for approach (48% posterior only, 33% combined anterior-posterior, 17% anterior-posterior-anterior or posterior-anterior-posterior, 2% anterior only) and had broad variation in the number of anterior (2-5) and posterior (6-19) fusion levels, and recommended osteotomies (41% pedicle subtraction osteotomy/vertebral column resection). CONCLUSIONS: Among a panel of deformity surgeons, there was marked lack of consensus on recommended surgical approach, osteotomies, and fusion levels for CSD. Further study is warranted to assess whether specific surgical treatment approaches are associated with better outcomes.