Clinical Outcomes and Complication Rates for Noncontiguous Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, Cervical Disc Arthroplasty, and Hybrid Cervical Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined clinical outcomes associated with 3 types of noncontiguous cervical surgeries - anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), and hybrid cervical surgery (HCS) - to improve surgeon decision-making. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science from database inception until June 6th, 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies that reported any type of clinical outcome, examined noncontiguous ACDF, noncontiguous CDA, and/or noncontiguous HCS. RESULTS: Ten articles out of 523 articles initially retrieved were included. Patients (n = 388) had a mean age of 52 ± 5.1 years and a mean follow-up time of 33 ± 6.0 months. Overall, 119 patients underwent noncontiguous HCS, 65 underwent noncontiguous CDA, and 204 underwent noncontiguous ACDF. There appears to be no clinically meaningful difference in Neck Disability Index score, Japanese Orthopedic Association score, and improvement in pain based on surgery type. There were a total of 83 complications (21% of cases) with noncontiguous ACDF having a higher absolute rate of dysphagia (20%) as compared to noncontiguous HCS (6.7%) or noncontiguous CDA (6.2%). Noncontiguous ACDF had a higher absolute rate of adjacent segment degeneration anterior cervical discectomy and fusion as a reported complication (6.4%) as compared to noncontiguous HCS (1.7%) and noncontiguous CDA (0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: There may be no clinically meaningful difference in many clinical outcomes for different noncontiguous surgical interventions for noncontiguous (cervical degenerative disc disease). However, complication rates, such as dysphagia and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, appear higher for noncontiguous ACDF as compared to noncontiguous CDA or HCS.

DO seniors and IMGs have lower match probabilities than MD seniors after adjusting for specialty choice and USMLE Step 1 score.

CONTEXT: It is unknown if US residency applicants of different educational backgrounds (US allopathic [MD], Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO], and international medical graduates [IMG]) but comparable academic performance have similar match success. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare match probabilities between applicant types after adjusting for specialty choice and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of published data in National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reports from 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 for US MD seniors, DO seniors, and IMGs (US citizens and non-US citizens). We examined the 10 specialties with the most available spots in 2022. Average marginal effects from a multiple variable logistic regression model were utilized to estimate each non-MD senior applicant type's probability of matching into their preferred specialty compared to MD seniors adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year. RESULTS: Each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching to their preferred specialty than MD seniors, -7.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.9) for DO seniors, -45.6 % (-50.6 to -40.5) for US IMGs, and -56.6 % (-61.5 to -51.6) for non-US IMGs. Similarly, each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching than MD seniors across almost all Step 1 score ranges, except for DO seniors with Step 1 scores <200 (-2.0 % [-9.5 to 5.5]). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year, non-US MD applicants had lower probabilities of matching into their preferred specialties than their US MD colleagues.

Academic productivity correlates with industry earnings in foot and ankle fellowship programs in the United States: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The study investigates the connection between academic productivity and industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships. Utilizing metrics like the H-index and Open Payments Database (OPD) data, it addresses a gap in understanding the relationship between scholarly achievements and financial outcomes, providing a basis for further exploration in this specialized medical field. AIM: To elucidate the trends between academic productivity and industry earnings across foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the relationship between academic productivity and industry earnings of foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships at an individual faculty and fellowship level. Academic productivity was defined via H-index and recorded from the Scopus website. Industry earnings were recorded from the OPD. RESULTS: Forty-eight foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships (100% of fellowships) in the United States with a combined total of 165 physicians (95.9% of physicians) were included. Mean individual physician (n = 165) total life-time earnings reported on the OPD website was United States Dollar (USD) 451430.30 ± 1851084.89 (range: USD 25.16-21269249.85; median: USD 27839.80). Mean physician (n = 165) H-index as reported on Scopus is 14.24 ± 12.39 (range: 0-63; median: 11). There was a significant but weak correlation between individual physician H-index and individual physician total life-time earnings (P < 0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.334) and a significant and moderate positive correlation between combined fellowship H-index and total life-time earnings per fellowship (P = 0.004, Spearman's rho = 0.409). CONCLUSION: There is a significant and positive correlation between academic productivity and industry earnings at foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships in the United States. This observation is true on an individual physician level as well as on a fellowship level.

An Analysis of Negative One-star Patient Reviews and Complaints for Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons throughout the United States: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients commonly use physician review websites when choosing a surgeon for an elective procedure. Although data exist regarding other orthopaedic specialties, no study has investigated one-star reviews for pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. The goal of this retrospective study was to classify the factors contributing to one-star reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons to identify which areas contribute to lower patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patient ratings on a 5-star system and comments about pediatric orthopaedic surgeons were collected from the state with the most physicians registered in the "Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North American" database for each of the 9 geographical regions of the United States as defined by the Association of American Medical Colleges. One-star reviews that included comments were classified as either surgical or nonsurgical. These comments were then further classified based on their content. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-four one-star reviews with 700 complaints were included in this study. Of these complaints, 481 (68.7%) were from nonsurgical patients and 219 (31.3%) were from surgical patients. Nonsurgical patients were significantly more likely to reference the amount of time spent with the physician (12.9% to 6.6%, P = 0.026), wait time (11.9% to 0.0%, P < 0.001), and bedside manner (41.2% to 22.8%, P < 0.001). Patients who said they had undergone a surgical procedure in their one-star review were significantly more likely to reference a disagreement with the physician's decision or plan (35.3% to 17.5%, P < 0.001), and uncontrolled pain (21.6% to 5.2%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the comments that referenced medical staff or institutional complaints between surgical and nonsurgical patients (13.8% to 11.4%, P = 0.424). CONCLUSION: Most one-star reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons referenced interpersonal skills and other nonclinical aspects of a clinical encounter, with bedside manner being the most frequent complaint. Patients who had undergone surgical procedures were less likely to leave a one-star review, but if they did, their comment was usually about a disagreement with the physician's plan. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prognostic studies III.