Expert Consensus for Early Onset Scoliosis Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite a validated classification system, high-quality multicenter research databases (CSSG/GSSG), and a recent proliferation in publications, early-onset scoliosis (EOS) surgeons have no consensus on standards for surgical treatment. The 21st-century revolution in EOS care has only accelerated, with the arrival of a classification system, magnetically controlled growing rod, nusinersen, and improved nonoperative care (Mehta or Risser casting and compliance-monitored braces). This dizzying pace of change may have outstripped our ability to develop best-practice standards for EOS surgical indications. To learn where consensus is best (and worst) at this moment, we surveyed EOS world thought-leaders on a collection of representative cases. METHODS: A 6-case survey was constructed and sent to 20 EOS world thought-leaders. The cases were selected to be representative of the major treatment categories: idiopathic, neuromuscular, syndromic, congenital, thoracic dysplasia, and spinal muscular atrophy (specifically to assess the impact of nusinersen and parasol deformity on surgical planning). Respondents were queried regarding treatment with specific attention to instrumentation and construct when surgery was selected. Responses regarding surgical timing and technique were analyzed for consensus (defined as >80%). χ analysis was performed to evaluate for differences in treatment preferences based on years of experience. RESULTS: The survey response was 100%. Clinical experience ranged from 8 to 40 years (average 23.9 y). There was no consensus on any case. The greatest variability was on the congenital case; the closest to consensus was on the spinal muscular atrophy case. Three or more approaches were selected for all 6 cases; >4 approaches were selected for 5 cases. There is a trend towards screw fixation for proximal anchors. The management of thoracic dysplasia and parasol deformity is far from consensus. CONCLUSION: The lack of consensus for surgical treatment of 6 representative EOS cases demands a renewed effort and commitment to develop best-practice guidelines based on multicenter outcome data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-Expert Opinion.

Eight Years of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Fellowship Match: What Have We Learned?

BACKGROUND: Pediatric orthopaedic surgery fellowships in North America have been organized, assigned, and administered through the San Francisco Match Program since 2011. However, trends in application numbers and match rates have not been assessed to this point. The purpose of this study is to describe these trends and applicants' perspective of the fellowship match. METHODS: The San Francisco Match databank was queried for program and applicant data from 2011 to 2018. Specifically, we obtained data regarding the number of applicants, programs, match rates, and match results. Each year, applicants also completed an anonymous post-match survey administered by the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America fellowship committee, which included information on the number of applications, interview process, estimated costs, and suggested changes. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and univariate statistics were used to assess differences in categorical and continuous variables. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2018, 524 applicants participated in the pediatric orthopaedic fellowship match, and the mean number of annual applicants was 66 (range, 55 to 76). The mean number of fellowship programs and available positions during the same time period was 43 (range, 40 to 47) and 69 (range, 63 to 74), respectively. Each fellowship interview was estimated by the applicant to cost a mean of $458 (range, $372 to $566), and annual application costs across all applicants were extrapolated to be over $200,000/year. The mean overall match rate was 81% (range, 74% to 91%). The mean match rate for North American applicants was 98.7% and international applicants were 40.9% (P<0.01). Approximately, 93% of applicants obtained one of their top 5 choices of fellowship program (range, 78% to 100%), and 50% of matched applicants obtained their top choice each year (range, 43% to 56%). CONCLUSION: In the pediatric orthopaedic fellowship match, the number of applicants and fellowship programs has remained relatively stable over the study period, and the majority of applicants match one of their top choices for fellowship. Proposed changes to the match should focus on decreasing the financial burden on applicants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.