Impact of Surgical Waiting-List Times on Scoliosis Surgery: The Surgeon's Perspective.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgeon's perspective on the potential impact of prolonged surgical waitlists on the surgical care and perioperative management of patients with scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The long waits for surgical treatment of scoliosis found in some countries may have serious implications for the complexity of surgery and perioperative care required if the curve progresses while waiting. The surgeon's perspective on this problem provides important information that needs to be taken into account during resource allocation. METHODS: Radiographs from 13 patients who had waited more than 6 months for scoliosis surgery were selected. Each patient had radiographs from the time of surgical booking and immediately preoperatively. The radiographs and a questionnaire were sent to 3 surgeons to canvass their surgical and postoperative plan. The surgeons were blinded to the fact that the radiographs were of the same patients at 2 time points. The patients' actual course of treatment was documented. RESULTS: Data for 11 patients were available for analysis. The average wait for surgery was 24 months (range, 17-30 mo). The mean curve progression was 25.3° while on the waitlist, from an average of 52° to 77°. By the time the patients had to undergo surgery, more anterior releases were added to posterior instrumentation alone in the surgical plan. Mean estimated operative time increased by 2.2 hours, mean estimated length of hospital stay increased by 1 day, and the estimated level of difficulty of surgery increased 2.33 grades. The predicted estimated blood loss also increased. CONCLUSION: From the surgeon's perspective, lengthy waitlists have a significant negative impact on the perioperative and postoperative care of patients with scoliosis by increasing the complexity of surgery. The actual course of treatment corresponded to the responses from these different surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Citation classics in pediatric orthopaedics.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical pediatric orthopaedic articles with at least 100 citations published in all orthopaedic journals and to examine their characteristics. METHODS: All journals dedicated to orthopaedics and its subspecialties were selected from the Journal Citation Report 2001 under the subject category "orthopedics." Articles cited 100 times or more were identified using the database of the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, 1900 to present). The articles were ranked in a comprehensive list. Two authors independently reviewed the full text of each article and applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the list of articles. The 2 lists were then compared. All disagreements were resolved by consensus with input from the senior author. The final list of pediatric orthopaedic articles was then compiled. RESULTS: There were a total of 49 journals under the search category "orthopedics." Five journals were excluded as they were non-English journals. The remaining 44 journals were screened for articles with at least 100 citations. A total of 135 clinical pediatric orthopaedic articles cited at least 100 times were included. The most cited article was cited 692 times. The mean number of citations per article was 159 (95% confidence interval, 145-173). All the articles were published between 1949 and 2001, with 1980 and 1989 producing the most citation classics (34). The majority (90) originated from the United States, followed by the United Kingdom (12) and Canada (11). Scoliosis/kyphosis was the most common topic with 26 papers. The second most common subject was hip disorders (24). Therapeutic studies were the most common study type (71). Ninety-seven papers were assigned a 4 for level of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The list of citation classics in pediatric orthopaedic articles is useful for several reasons. It identifies important contributions to the field of pediatric orthopaedics and their originators; it facilitates the understanding and discourse of modern pediatric orthopaedic history and reveals trends in pediatric orthopaedics.

Publication of abstracts submitted to the annual meeting of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America: is there a difference between accepted versus rejected abstracts?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine publication rates of all abstracts submitted for presentation at the annual conference of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) comparing papers accepted for presentation with those that were not accepted and to determine the median times to publication and the mean impact factor of journals that published papers from the 2 groups. METHODS: The titles and authors of all abstracts submitted for presentation to the POSNA for the years 2003 to 2005 were identified. To determine publication status, we conducted a computerized Pubmed search using the first author's name. If multiple publications were identified, the Boolean search operator AND was used to combine author names with key words. The title of each located published article was compared with the title of the abstract. If differences were noted, the abstract content was compared with the final publication. The journals, impact factor was determined using the journal citation report. The median time from conference presentation to publication was determined using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Of 1191 abstracts submitted to the annual meetings of POSNA from the years 2003 through 2005, 440 (37%) were accepted for presentation. Acceptance of submitted abstracts increased from 30% in 2003 to 40% in 2005. Of the 1191 abstracts 599 (50%) were subsequently published by August 2009. The mean publication rate for abstracts accepted for presentation was 58.9% (259 of 440) compared with 45% (339 of 751) for rejected abstracts. The median time to publication of accepted abstracts was not significantly different when compared with that of rejected abstracts. The mean journal impact factor for accepted articles was 2.2 compared with 1.5 for rejected abstracts. CONCLUSIONS: The publication rates of abstracts submitted to POSNA is high compared with those of other international orthopaedic associations. The mean publication rate for accepted abstracts and rejected abstracts has increased substantially from 45% and 38% in 1991 to 1994 to 58.9% and 45% in 2003 to 2005, respectively. The journal in which most of the abstracts are ultimately published is the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics[corrected]. SIGNIFICANCE: A significant proportion of abstracts not accepted for presentation at POSNA meetings are published in peer-reviewed journals. Nonacceptance of a study for presentation should not be a hindering factor for researchers in attempting to publish their study in peer-reviewed journals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.