Reporting and Analyzing Race and Ethnicity in Orthopaedic Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The distinction between race and ethnicity should be carefully understood and described for demographic data collection. Racial healthcare differences have been observed across many orthopaedic subspecialties. However, the frequency of reporting and analyzing race and ethnicity in orthopaedic clinical trials has not been determined. Therefore, the primary purpose of this systematic review was to determine how frequently race and ethnicity are reported and analyzed in orthopaedic clinical trials. METHODS: The top 10 journals by impact factor in the field of orthopaedics were manually screened from 2015 to 2019. All randomized controlled trials related to orthopaedics and assessing clinical outcomes were included. Eligible studies were evaluated for bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and for whether the trial reported and analyzed several demographics, including age, sex, height, weight, race, and ethnicity. The frequency of reporting and analyzing by each demographic was accessed. In addition, comparisons of reporting and analyzing race/ethnicity were made based on orthopaedic subspecialty and journal of publication. RESULTS: A total of 15,488 publications were screened and 482 met inclusion criteria. Of these 482 trials, 460 (95.4%) reported age and 456 (94.6%) reported sex, whereas 35 (7.3%) reported race and 15 (3.1%) reported ethnicity for the randomized groups; 79 studies (16.4%) analyzed age and 72 studies (14.9%) analyzed sex, whereas 6 studies (1.2%) analyzed race and 1 study (0.2%) analyzed ethnicity. The orthopaedic subspecialty of spine was found to report race (23.5%) and ethnicity (17.6%) more frequently than all the other subspecialties, whereas sports medicine reported race and/or ethnicity in only 3 of 150 trials (2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity are not frequently reported or analyzed in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials. Social context, personal challenges, and economic challenges should be considered while analyzing the effect of race and ethnicity on outcomes.

Intraoperative Ketamine in Total Knee Arthroplasty Does Not Decrease Pain and Narcotic Consumption: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated that ketamine, a glutamate receptor blocker, may decrease postoperative pain in abdominal and orthopedic surgeries. However, its role with spinal anesthesia and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of subanesthetic dosing of ketamine during TKA on postoperative pain and narcotic consumption. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial, we enrolled 91 patients undergoing primary TKA with spinal anesthesia in a single institution from 2017 to 2018. Patients were randomized to receive intraoperative ketamine infusion at a rate of 6 mcg/kg/min for 75 minutes or a saline placebo. All patients received spinal anesthesia and otherwise identical surgical approaches, pain management, and rehabilitation protocols. Patient-reported visual analog pain scores were calculated preoperatively, postoperative days (POD) 0-7, and 2 weeks. Narcotic consumption was evaluated on POD 0 and 1. RESULTS: There was no difference in average pain between ketamine and placebo at all time points except for at PODs 1 (45 vs 56, P = .041) and 4 (39 vs 49, P = .040). For least pain experienced, patients administered with ketamine experienced a reduction in pain only at POD 4 (22 vs 35, P = .011). There was no difference in maximum pain cohorts at all time points of the study or in-hospital morphine equivalents between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSION: As part of multimodal pain management protocol, intraoperative ketamine does not result in a clinically significant improvement in pain and narcotic consumption following TKA.

Levels of Evidence in Orthopaedic Trauma Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To review and critically assess trends observed regarding the levels of evidence in published articles in orthopaedic traumatology literature. DATA SOURCES: The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American, and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. STUDY SELECTION: All articles from the years 1998, 2003, 2008, and 2013 in The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) and orthopaedic trauma-related articles from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American (JBJS-A) and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR) were analyzed. Articles were categorized by type and ranked for level of evidence according to guidelines from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Study type and standardized level of evidence were determined for each article. Articles were subcategorized as high-level evidence (I, II), moderate-level evidence (III), and low-level evidence (IV, V). DATA SYNTHESIS: During the study period, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American reduced its low-level studies from 80% to 40% (P = 0.00015), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research decreased its low-level studies from 70% to 27%, and Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma decreased its low-level studies from 78% to 45%. Level IV and V therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic studies demonstrated significant decreases during the study period (P = 0.0046, P < 0.0001, P = 0.026). The percentage of high-level studies increased from 13% to 19%; however, this was not significant (P = 0.42). There was a trend showing an increase in level I and II studies for therapeutic, prognostic, and diagnostic studies (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a statistically significant decrease in lower level of evidence studies published in the orthopaedic traumatology literature over the past 15 years.

There is no need to avoid resistance training (weight lifting) until physeal closure.

The physis, or growth plate, is relatively weaker than the surrounding bone; as a result, individuals with immature skeletons are at risk for growth plate injury from forces that would not harm an adult. Based on the knowledge that immature growth plates are weaker than adult growth plates, it is not known with certainty whether or not adolescents can participate safely in resistance training programs. Because medical literature does not definitively answer if it is safe for adolescents to pursue strength-training programs, we previously surveyed 500 experts in sports medicine to determine whether they agreed with the statement "resistance training ('weight lifting') should be avoided until physeal closure." Overall, respondents answered that "this statement is very likely false." In this article, we interpret the experts' survey responses by reviewing the basic and clinical sciences implicit in the question, as well as the literature regarding adolescent outcomes. Although the avoidance of resistance training by adolescents is theoretically appealing, we found that the data indicate properly supervised weight programs are not associated with increased risk of acute injury. However, the literature offers no insight about the long-term implications of weight lifting on growth plates. In sum, the expert consensus from our survey that strength training is safe for individuals with immature skeletons is consistent with data from medical literature.