How Prominent Are Gender Bias, Racial Bias, and Score Inflation in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Recommendation Letters? A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Letters of recommendation are considered an important factor in the holistic ranking of orthopaedic residency applications. The standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) was introduced in 2017 in response to the inherent bias and limited comparative value of traditional LORs. It includes standardized questions about an applicant's orthopaedic qualifications, designed to enable fair comparisons among candidates. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies on the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation. QUESTION/PURPOSES: In this systematic review we asked: (1) What is the distribution of applicant SLOR rating among nine domains and summative scores? (2) Are there applicant characteristics associated with SLOR ratings? (3) Is there gender and racial bias in the SLOR and narrative letter of recommendation? METHODS: PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar electronic databases were queried on March 20, 2023, to identify all studies evaluating SLOR and narrative letter of recommendations between January 1, 2017, and March 20, 2023. Articles that evaluated orthopaedic SLOR or narrative LORs were included. Systematic reviews, case reports, duplicate studies between databases, and grey literature such as abstracts and articles on preprint servers were excluded. Eight studies including 6179 applicants and 18,987 letters of recommendation were included in the final analysis. The applicant classes ranged from years 2014 to 2020. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for cross-sectional studies. The mean JBI score of included studies was 7.4 out of a maximum of 8, with higher scores indicating better quality. The primary outcome was to determine the distribution of applicant SLOR rankings in their summative score. Summative scores were separated into ranked to match, top one-third, middle one-third, lower one-third, and not a fit. Four studies reported the summative SLOR scores of applicants. Our secondary study goal was to assess applicant characteristics associated with SLOR summative scores and assess any bias present in the SLOR or narrative recommendation. Five studies compared SLOR ratings across applicant characteristics including gender, race, USMLE Step 1 score, USMLE Step 2 score, Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) membership, clerkship grades, and publications. Gender and racial bias were also assessed across five studies. Four studies utilized a linguistic analysis software to search letters of recommendation for differences in word category use by gender and race. RESULTS: Studies consistently found that a higher percentage of candidates were identified in the top percentile blocks than is mathematically possible. For example, the two studies that tallied the proportion of candidates ranking in the top 10% of applicants found that 36% and 42% were rated as being in the top 10%. Similarly, articles found more than 87% of applicants scored in the top one-third. Studies had mixed results, but in general, they suggested that AΩA status, higher Step 1 scores, and more research publications have a slightly positive association with increased SLOR scores. We found no evidence of gender bias against women, and in fact, most studies evaluating word choices found word choices for women candidates generally were stronger. Similarly, no consistent disparities were identified in word categories utilized in SLORs based on applicant race. CONCLUSION: Most notably, a mathematically impossible proportion of applicants were counted in the top percentiles in letters of recommendation. This compromises readers' abilities to differentiate candidates. Factors like AOA status and research publications displayed a modest positive correlation with SLOR scores. Gender bias against women or candidates from racial minority groups was not evident. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We suggest that group SLOR authorship, with a consensus assessment by clerkship or residency directors, should be considered. We also recommend the incorporation of mean and SD scores for each letter writer (or group) alongside their letters. Furthermore, studies indicate that submitting all four SLOR letters can substantially improve an applicant's chances of success. We advise students to choose strategically and submit the maximum allowable number of SLORs.

Should my recommendation letter be written by artificial intelligence?

SummaryLetters of recommendation are increasingly important for the residency match. We assessed whether an artificial intelligence (AI) tool could help in writing letters of recommendation by analyzing recommendation letters written by 3 academic staff and AI duplicate versions for 13 applicants. The preferred letters were selected by 3 blinded orthopedic program directors based on a pre-determined set of criteria. The first orthopedic program director selected the AI letter for 31% of applicants, and the 2 remaining program directors selected the AI letter for 38% of applicants, with the staff-written versions selected more often by all of the program directors (p < 0.05). The first program director recognized only 15% of the AI-written letters, the second was able to identify 92%, and the third director identified 77% of AI-written letters (p < 0.05).

Establishing a consensus on research priorities in orthopaedic trauma within South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low- and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK healthcare practitioners within SA. METHOD: Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA. RESULTS: Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups-clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures. CONCLUSION: This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts.

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.

Validation and Implementation of 4-domain Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Tailored for Orthopedic Sports Medicine.

The validation of a 4-domain PROM tailored to orthopedic sports medicine was performed through item generation, item scaling, validity and reliability testing, statistical analysis, as well as item reduction. Conbrach's alpha was used to verify item homogeneity, i. e. their accuracy or consistency. This PROM showed acceptable statistical accuracy and clinical applicability for a variety of surgical treatments, regardless of the anatomical injury sites. Moreover, this PROM considers the athletes' primary physical demands in an non-injured baseline condition, their motivation to continue sports practice and participation, and the influence of sports practice on their quality of life. This 4-domain PROM tailored for orthopedic sports medicine appears to be a valid tool to assess athletes and high-performing practitioners with sports injuries, recording their perception of injury, expectations of treatment; evaluation of postoperative care and treatment received, and perceived outcomes compared to their pre-injury status of physical demands in sports activity. The tool is unique, allowing direct comparisons between athletes' perception of pre-injury baseline, injury, treatment, and outcome. It will be a welcome adjunct to the sports medicine professional's tool box when assessing athlete's status and outcome after injury and intervention.

"Greek KOOS-Child: a valid, disease specific, diagnostically accurate and responsive PROM in children with knee-related pathology".

PURPOSE: The Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-Child questionnaire is one of the frequently child-friendly measures used in pediatric studies. The aim of this study was to transculturally adapt the Greek version of KOOS-Child and evaluate its clinimetric properties in children with knee disorders. METHODS: Children visiting the Outpatients Orthopaedic Clinic of a Greek Paediatric General Hospital were considered eligible if they were aged 8-14 years, had a knee soft tissue injury and associated physical limitations. The transcultural adaptation was based on a multistage backward translation approach. Participants completed the KOOS-Child at their first visit to the orthopedic specialist (baseline), 2 weeks and 3 months after baseline. Content validity of the KOOS-Child was evaluated using general QoL measures (KIDSCREEN and Kid-KINDL) and construct validity was explored by correlating relevant items. Responsiveness was evaluated according to the children's response on the given orthopeadic treatment. RESULTS: Sample consisted of 59 children (30 males), aged: 11 ± 1.8 years. The KOOS-Child showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's a: 0.80-0.96). Adequate convergent validity with > 75% relevant a priori hypotheses was confirmed. Construct validity was moderate to strong (Pearson's r correlations between related KOOS and Kid-KINDL subdimensions: 0.54-0.62). KOOS and KIDSCREEN subdimensions correlations were fair (Pearson's r correlations: 0.32-0.65). KOOS-Child's diagnostic accuracy was high. Factor analysis extracted height factors accounting for 76.15% of the total variance, confirmed by the scree plot. Responsiveness was moderate to high with Cohen's d from 0.6 to 1.4. CONCLUSION: The Greek version of the KOOS-Child demonstrated excellent internal consistency, good construct validity, diagnostic accuracy and interpretability as well as good responsiveness. The measure could be used across Greek children with orthopaedic knee problems. Generalisability of findings is limited due to the relatively limited cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

The Majority of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Pediatric Orthopaedic Research Are Used Without Validation.

BACKGROUND: Given that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to inform clinical decision-making, it is vital that they are validated, reliable, responsive, and appropriate for the population under study. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the rate of PROM use in the pediatric orthopaedic literature, characterize whether each use was in the PROM-validated demographic, and analyze the association between bibliometric factors and the use of PROMs with incomplete validation. METHODS: The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science database was queried for all clinical pediatric orthopaedic studies from 2014 to 2017. All PROMs were recorded for each study independently by 2 reviewers and cross-referenced with the published orthopaedic literature as of 2017 to determine if the PROM had been validated for the study population. PROMs that had not been validated, had been shown to be invalid, or had conflicting validity studies for use in the population of interest were designated as incompletely validated or used without complete validation. The following covariates were recorded for each study: subspecialty, inclusion of a statistician coauthor, sample size, journal, and the journal impact factor. χ analysis was used to evaluate the association between categorical variables and the use of at least 1 incompletely validated PROM. RESULTS: In total, 1000 articles were screened, yielding 653 studies that met our inclusion criteria. A total of 104/653 (16%) publications-reported PROMs. PROMs were used without complete validation 120/165 (73%) times, and 77/104 (74%) studies used at least 1 PROM without complete validation. The most frequent reasons for incomplete validation were (1) using PROMs that had been validated in adults, but not pediatrics (n=47; 28.5%), and (2) using PROMs that had been designated in the literature as invalid for pediatrics (n=27; 16.4%). The incomplete validation of at least 1 PROM was associated with smaller sample size (P=0.01) and subspecialty (P<0.01). Overall rates of PROM use and the proportion of PROMs used without complete validation were both found to be higher than those previously reported. CONCLUSION: The majority of pediatric orthopaedic studies reporting PROMs used at least 1 PROM without complete validation for their study population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-systematic review of level I, II, III, and IV studies.

Radiation Reduction Strategies in Pediatric Orthopaedics.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric orthopaedic patients have the potential for significant radiation exposure from the use of imaging studies, such as computed tomography and bone scintigraphy. With the potential for long-term treatment, such as is required for scoliosis or osteogenesis imperfecta, patients are at even greater risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis. DISCUSSION: Although an association between radiation and cancer risk is evident, causation is difficult to prove because comorbidities or genetic predispositions may play a role in the higher baseline rates of malignancy later in life. Efforts have been made over the years to reduce exposure using more modern imaging techniques and simple radiation reduction strategies. Educational efforts and clinical practice guidelines are decreasing the rate of computed tomography scan use in pediatrics. Although considerable work is being done on the development of radiation-free imaging modalities, imaging that uses ionizing radiation will, in the near term, be necessary in specific circumstances to provide optimal care to pediatric orthopaedic patients. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the ionizing radiation exposure associated with commonly used tests as well as radiation-reduction strategies is essential for the optimal and safe care of pediatric orthopaedic patients.

Inter-rater and Intrarater Reliabilities of the Identification of a "Gothic Arch" in the Acetabulum of Children With Cerebral Palsy.

BACKGROUND: Progressive hip displacement in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is monitored by measuring migration percentage (MP) on anteroposterior (AP) pelvis radiographs. Accurate measurement of MP requires the lateral margin of the ossified acetabulum to be identified for the placement of Perkin's line. It has been suggested that when there is an erosion of the acetabular rim, described as a gothic arch, the midpoint of the arch be used for the placement of Perkin's line. However, this requires that there be agreement on what constitutes a gothic arch. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater and intrarater reliabilities of identifying a gothic arch on pelvis radiographs. METHODS: An online survey with 100 AP pelvis images (200 hips) of children with CP was sent to international experts. Participants were asked to identify which hip(s) had a gothic arch (left, right, both, and neither). The Fleiss κ statistic for inter-rater reliability was calculated. Eight weeks later, the images were shuffled and redistributed to calculate intrarater reliability. RESULTS: The initial survey was completed by 10 participants with 9 participants completing the second survey. The average inter-rater κ value was 0.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14-0.23] and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24) for the 2 surveys, respectively. Among the pediatric orthopaedic surgeons subgroup, the κ values were 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.1) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.13). The average intrarater reliability κ value was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.2-1), ranging from 0.32 to 0.86. CONCLUSIONS: There were poor inter-rater and moderate intrarater reliabilities in identifying a gothic arch on AP pelvis radiographs in children with CP. Further characterization and clarification of what constitutes a gothic arch are required. The lack of agreement on the identification of a gothic arch may negatively impact the measurement of MP and referrals to a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon.

Standardizing statistics and data reporting in orthopaedic research.

As the demand for research within orthopaedic surgery continues to grow, it is important to emphasize appropriate data reporting. Insufficient statistical reporting confounds data interpretation and makes it difficult to compare results. Currently, there are no guidelines for reporting results within the orthopaedic literature. This article discusses the importance of appropriate data reporting and proposes guidelines for presenting orthopaedic data to highlight clinical relevance rather than statistical significance.

Can traditional bonesetters become trained technicians? Feasibility study among a cohort of Nigerian traditional bonesetters.

BACKGROUND: Traditional bonesetters (TBS) provide the majority of primary fracture care in Nigeria and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). They are widely patronized and their services are commonly associated with complications. The aim of the study was to establish the feasibility of formal training of TBS and subsequent integration into the healthcare system. METHODS: Two focus group discussions were conducted involving five TBS and eight orthopaedic surgeons in Enugu Nigeria. Audio-recordings made during the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis method. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: Training of TBS, their experiences and challenges; perception of traditional bonesetting by orthopaedic surgeons; need for formal training TBS and willingness to offer and accept formal training to improve TBS practice. Participants (TBS group) acquired their skills through informal training by apprenticeship from relatives and family members. They recognized the need to formalize their training and were willing to accept training support from orthopaedists. The orthopaedists recognized that the TBS play a vital role in filling the gap created by shortage of orthopaedic surgeons and are willing to provide training support to them. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of providing formal training to TBS by orthopaedic surgeons to improve the quality of services and outcomes of TBS treatment. This is critical for integration of TBS into the primary healthcare system as orthopaedic technicians. Undoubtedly, this will transform the trauma system in Nigeria and other LMICs where TBS are widely patronized.

Most Orthopaedic Studies Using the National Inpatient Sample Fail to Adhere to Recommended Research Practices: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database is accessible, inexpensive, and increasingly used in orthopaedic research, but it has complex design features that require nuanced methodological considerations for appropriate use and interpretation. A recent study showed poor adherence to recommended research practices for the NIS across a broad spectrum of medical and surgical fields, but the degree and patterns of nonadherence among orthopaedic publications remain unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we sought: (1) to quantify nonadherence to recommended research practices provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for using the NIS data in orthopaedic studies from 2016-2017; and, (2) to identify the most common nonadherence practices. METHODS: We evaluated all 136 manuscripts published across the 74 orthopaedic journals listed on Scimago Journal & Country Rank that used the NIS from January 2016 through December 2017. Of those studies, 2% (3 of 136) were excluded because NIS was not used for analysis. The studies were evaluated for adherence to seven recommended research practices by the AHRQ: (1) identifying observations as hospitalization events rather than unique patients; (2) not performing state-level analyses; (3) limiting hospital-level analyses to data from year 1988-2011; (4) not performing physician-level analyses; (5) avoiding the use of nonspecific secondary diagnosis codes to infer in-hospital events; (6) using survey-specific analysis methods that account for clustering, stratification, and weighting; and (7) accounting for data changes in trend analyses spanning major transition periods in the data set (1997-1998 and 2011-2012). RESULTS: Overall, 93% (124 of 133) of the studies did not adhere to one or more practices. For each of the research practices assessed, 80% (106 of 133) of the studies did not account for the clustering and stratification in survey design; 56% (75 of 133) implied records were unique patients rather than hospitalization events; 41% (54 of 133) inappropriately used secondary diagnosis codes to infer in-hospital events. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all manuscripts published in orthopaedic journals using the NIS database in 2016 and 2017 failed to adhere to recommended research practices. Future research quantifying variations in study results on the basis of adherence to recommended research practices would be of value. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With the ubiquitous presence of large-database studies in orthopaedic journals, our work points to the importance of rigorous methodological appraisal when evaluating results, and encourages journals to require the use of the methodology checklists upon submission of such studies. More research is needed to determine whether deviations from recommended research practices actually lead to biased conclusions that affect patient care and policy-related decisions.

Are Virtual Fracture Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic a Potential Alternative for Delivering Fracture Care? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Virtual fracture clinics are an alternative to the traditional model of fracture care. Since their introduction in 2011, they have become increasingly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health crisis has driven institutions to examine such innovative solutions to manage patient care. The current controversies include quantifying safety outcomes, such as potential delayed or missed injuries, inadequate treatment, and medicolegal claims. Questions also exist regarding the potential for cost reductions and efficiencies that may be achieved. Physical distancing has limited the number of face-to-face consultations, so this review was conducted to determine if virtual fracture clinics can provide an acceptable alternative in these challenging times. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this systematic review was to describe (1) adverse outcomes, (2) cost reductions, and (3) efficiencies associated with the virtual fracture clinic model. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to March 2020. The keywords "virtual" or "telemedicine" or "telehealth" or "remote" or "electronic" AND "fracture" or "trauma" or "triage" AND "clinic" or "consultation" were entered, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria included adults and children treated for injuries by a virtual clinic model at the initial review. Eligible injuries included injuries deemed to not need surgical intervention, and those able to be treated remotely using defined protocols. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients reviewed by telemedicine using video links or in person at the initial review. Initially, 1065 articles were identified, with 665 excluded as they did not relate to virtual fracture clinics. In all, 400 articles were screened for eligibility, and 27 full-text reviews were conducted on 18 studies (30,512 virtual fracture clinic encounters). Three subdomains focusing on adverse outcomes, cost reductions, and efficiencies were recorded. The term adverse outcomes was used to describe any complications, further surgeries, re-referrals back to the clinic, or deviations from the protocols. Efficiency described the number of patients reviewed and discharged using the model, savings in clinic slots, reduced waiting times, or a reduction in consumption of resources such as radiographs. All studies were observational and the quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa tool, which demonstrated a median score of 6 ± 1.8, indicating moderate quality. RESULTS: Six studies reported adverse outcomes in detail, with events ranging from inappropriate splinting, deviations from protocols, and one patient underwent an osteotomy for a malunion. Efficiency varied from direct discharge proportions of 18% in early studies to 100% once the virtual fracture clinic model was more established. Cost reductions compared with estimates derived from conventional fracture clinics varied from USD 53 to USD 297 and USD 39,125 to USD 305876 compared with traditional fracture clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual fracture clinics may provide a means to treat patients remotely, using agreed-upon protocols. They have an important role in the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the possibility to provide ongoing care in an otherwise challenging setting. More robust studies looking at this model of care will be needed to assess its long-term effects on patients, institutions, and health care systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Accuracy of Currently Available Methods in Quantifying Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss: Controversy Regarding Gold Standard-A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of glenoid bone loss-measuring methods and assess the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the measurement methods. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1994 to June 11, 2019. The guidelines and algorithm of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) were used. Included for analysis were articles reporting the accuracy of glenoid bone loss-measuring methods in patients with anterior shoulder instability by comparing an index test and a reference test. Furthermore, articles were included if anterior glenoid bone loss was quantified using a ruler during arthroscopy or by measurements on plain radiograph(s), computed tomography (CT) images, or magnetic resonance images in living humans. The risk of bias was determined using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, showing 17 different methods. Three studies reported on the accuracy of methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Two studies determined the accuracy of glenoid bone loss-measuring methods performed on radiography by comparing them with methods performed on 3-dimensional CT. Six studies determined the accuracy of methods performed using imaging modalities with an arthroscopic method as the reference. Eight studies reported on the influence of the imaging modality on the accuracy of the methods. There was no consensus regarding the gold standard. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, a quantitative analysis was not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus regarding the gold standard in measuring glenoid bone loss is lacking. The use of heterogeneous data and varying methods contributes to differences in the gold standard, and accuracy therefore cannot be determined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.

The Law of Use and Disuse: Critical Shoulder Angle and Rotator Cuff Tears-Association Does Not Imply Causation.

The critical shoulder angle has been associated with the development of rotator cuff lesions. Over time, this association has been interpreted as a cause-effect relation without scientific evidence. Beyond the controversies that exist on the reliability and relevance of this radiographic parameter, the critical shoulder angle per se may not be responsible for rotator cuff tears because patient activities throughout several decades could induce not only cuff lesions but also bone remodeling at the acromial level.

COVID-19 coronavirus: recommended personal protective equipment for the orthopaedic and trauma surgeon.

PURPOSE: With the COVID-19 crisis, recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) are necessary for protection in orthopaedics and traumatology. The primary purpose of this study is to review and present current evidence and recommendations for personal protective equipment and safety recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons and trauma surgeons. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was performed using the keyword terms "COVID-19", "Coronavirus", "surgeon", "health-care workers", "protection", "masks", "gloves", "gowns", "helmets", and "aerosol" in several combinations. The following databases were assessed: Pubmed, Cochrane Reviews, Google Scholar. Due to the paucity of available data, it was decided to present it in a narrative manner. In addition, participating doctors were asked to provide their guidelines for PPE in their countries (Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, UK) for consideration in the presented practice recommendations. RESULTS: World Health Organization guidance for respiratory aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation in a COVID19 environment was clear and included the use of an FFP3 (filtering face piece level 3) mask and face protection. However, the recommendation for surgical AGPs, such as the use of high-speed power tools in the operating theatre, was not clear until the UK Public Health England (PHE) guidance of 27 March 2020. This guidance included FFP3 masks and face protection, which UK surgeons quickly adopted. The recommended PPE for orthopaedic surgeons, working in a COVID19 environment, should consist of level 4 surgical gowns, face shields or goggles, double gloves, FFP2-3 or N95-99 respirator masks. An alternative to the mask, face shield and goggles is a powered air-purifying respirator, particularly if the surgeons fail the mask fit test or are required to undertake a long procedure. However, there is a high cost and limited availabilty of these devices at present. Currently available surgical helmets and toga systems may not be the solution due to a permeable top for air intake. During the current COVID-19 crisis, it appeared that telemedicine can be considered as an electronic personal protective equipment by reducing the number of physical contacts and risk contamination. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic and trauma surgery using power tools, pulsatile lavage and electrocautery are surgical aerosol-generating procedures and all body fluids contain virus particles. Raising awareness of these issues will help avoid occupational transmission of COVID-19 to the surgical team by aerosolization of blood or other body fluids and hence adequate PPE should be available and used during orthopaedic surgery. In addition, efforts have to be made to improve the current evidence in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Returning to orthopaedic business as usual after COVID-19: strategies and options.

PURPOSE: The aim of this manuscript is to review the available strategies in the international literature to efficiently and safely return to both normal orthopaedic surgical activities and to normal outpatient clinical activities in the aftermath of a large epidemic or pandemic. This information would be beneficial to adequately reorganize outpatient clinics and hospitals to provide the highest possible level of orthopaedic care to our patients in a safe and efficient manner. METHODS: A literature search was performed for relevant research articles. In addition, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the EU CDC and other government health agency websites were searched for any relevant information. In particular, interest was paid to strategies and advise on managing the orthopaedic patient flow during outpatient clinics as well as surgical procedures including the necessary safety measures, while still providing a high-quality patient experience. The obtained information is provided as a narrative review. RESULTS: There was not any specific literature concerning the organization of an outpatient clinic and surgical activities and the particular challenges in dealing with a high-volume practice, in the afterwave of a pandemic. CONCLUSION: As the COVID-19 crisis has abruptly halted most of the orthopaedic activities both in the outpatient clinic and the operating room, a progressive start-up scenario needs to be planned. The exact timing largely depends on factors outside of our control. After restrictions will be lifted, clinical and surgical volume will progressively increase. This paper offers key points and possible strategies to provide the highest level of safety to both the orthopaedic patient and the orthopaedic team including administrative staff and nurses, during the start-up phase. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, Level V.

Management of orthopaedic and traumatology patients during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in northern Italy.

PURPOSE: This article aims to share northern Italy's experience in hospital re-organization and management of clinical pathways for traumatic and orthopaedic patients in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Authors collected regional recommendations to re-organize the healthcare system during the initial weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020. The specific protocols implemented in an orthopaedic hospital, selected as a regional hub for minor trauma, are analyzed and described in this article. RESULTS: Two referral centres were identified as the hubs for minor trauma to reduce the risk of overload in general hospitals. These two centres have specific features: an emergency room, specialized orthopaedic surgeons for joint diseases and trauma surgeons on-call 24/7. Patients with trauma without the need for a multi-disciplinary approach or needing non-deferrable elective orthopaedic surgery were moved to these hospitals. Authors report the internal protocols of one of these centres. All elective surgery was stopped, outpatient clinics limited to emergencies and specific pathways, ward and operating theatre dedicated to COVID-19-positive patients were implemented. An oropharyngeal swab was performed in the emergency room for all patients needing to be admitted, and patients were moved to a specific ward with single rooms to wait for the results. Specific courses were organized to demonstrate the correct use of personal protection equipment (PPE). CONCLUSION: The structure of the orthopaedic hubs, and the internal protocols proposed, could help to improve the quality of assistance for patients with musculoskeletal disorders and reduce the risk of overload in general hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Decision making in treatment after a first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocation: A Delphi approach by the Neer Circle of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients who sustain a first-time anterior glenohumeral dislocation (FTAGD) is controversial. The purpose of this study was to find consensus among experts using a validated iterative process in the treatment of patients after an FTAGD. METHODS: The Neer Circle is an organization of shoulder experts recognized for their service to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. Consensus among 72 identified experts from this group was sought with a series of surveys using the Delphi process. The first survey used open-ended questions designed to identify patient-related features that influence treatment decisions after an FTAGD. The second survey used a Likert scale to rank each feature's impact on treatment decisions. The third survey used highly impactful features to construct 162 clinical scenarios. For each scenario, experts recommended surgery or not and reported how strongly they made their recommendation. These data were analyzed to find clinical scenarios that had >90% consensus for recommending treatment. These data were also used in univariate and multivariate mixed-effects models to identify odds ratios (ORs) for different features and to assess how combining these features influenced the probability of surgery for specific populations. RESULTS: Of the 162 scenarios, 8 (5%) achieved >90% consensus for recommending surgery. All of these scenarios treated athletes with meaningful bone loss at the end of their season. In particular, for contact athletes aged > 14 years who were at the end of the season and had apprehension and meaningful bone loss, there was >90% consensus for recommending surgery after an FTAGD, with surgeons feeling very strongly about this recommendation. Of the scenarios, 22 (14%) reached >90% consensus for recommending nonoperative treatment. All of these scenarios lacked meaningful bone loss. In particular, surgeons felt very strongly about recommending nonoperative treatment after an FTAGD for non-athletes lacking apprehension without meaningful bone loss. The presence of meaningful bone loss (OR, 6.85; 95% confidence interval, 6.24-7.52) and apprehension (OR, 5.60; 95% confidence interval, 5.03-6.25) were the strongest predictors of surgery. When these 2 features were combined, profound effects increasing the probability of surgery for different populations (active-duty military, non-athletes, noncontact athletes, and contact athletes) were noted, particularly non-athletes. CONCLUSION: Consensus for recommending treatment of the FTAGD patient was not easily achieved. Certain combinations of patient-specific factors, such as the presence of meaningful bone loss and apprehension, increased the probability of surgery after an FTAGD in all populations. Over 90% of shoulder instability experts recommend surgery after an FTAGD for contact athletes aged > 14 years at the end of the season with both apprehension and meaningful bone loss. Over 90% of experts would not perform surgery after a first dislocation in patients who are not athletes and who lack apprehension without meaningful bone loss.

Displaced Distal Radius Fracture Treatment: A Survey of POSNA Membership.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are the most common pediatric orthopaedic fracture, of which 20% are displaced injuries. Displaced metaphyseal DRFs are often treated with sedated or anesthetized reduction. The necessity of reduction treatment of displaced fractures to achieve good clinical outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the treatment preferences for DRFs among pediatric orthopaedic surgeons and to determine whether they were uncertain enough in their decisions to randomize treatment. METHODS: Twenty-eight DRF scenarios in children aged 3 to 10 years were constructed in an electronic survey to represent a spectrum of age, angulation in sagittal and coronal planes, and displacement. The survey was disseminated to the full membership of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA). Respondents could select either a treatment of (a) attempt anatomic reduction with sedation or (b) nonsedated immobilization. Respondents also denoted whether they would be willing to randomize the treatment of each injury scenario. Patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were analyzed to develop predictors of treatment recommendations and willingness to randomize treatment. RESULTS: A total of 319 surgeons responded (23% of POSNA membership). Respondents were a characteristic representation of POSNA membership (well distributed by years in practice, 78% academic, 91% whose work is >80% pediatrics, and 84% work with residents). Predictors of sedated reduction were complete displacement [odds ratio (OR), 9.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.27-37.51; P=0.002] and coronal angulation (per 1-degree increase, OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; P=0.016), Willingness to randomize was inversely related to larger coronal plane angulation (per 1-degree increase, OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; P=0.01). A majority of surgeons were willing to randomize 7 of the 8 scenarios involving complete displacement and shortening, and >64% of surgeons were willing to randomize 5 of these 8 scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: POSNA members recommend sedated reduction of DRFs primarily based on existence of complete displacement. Although most completely displaced DRFs would undergo reduction, most surgeons would be willing to randomize the treatment of these injuries. This suggests that most POSNA members do not know whether their recommended treatment for displaced DRFs is necessary or correct. This survey establishes the groundwork for a randomized, prospective trial comparing nonsedated immobilization with sedated/anesthetized reduction in the treatment of displaced pediatric DRFs. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II-survey study.