Systematic Review of Gender and Sex Terminology Use in Arthroplasty Research: There Is Room for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing appreciation of the distinction between gender and sex as well as the importance of accurately reporting these constructs. Given recent attention regarding transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) and intersex identities, it is more necessary than ever to understand how to describe these identities in research. This study sought to investigate the use of gender- and sex-based terminology in arthroplasty research. METHODS: The 5 leading orthopaedic journals publishing arthroplasty research were reviewed to identify the first twenty primary clinical research articles on an arthroplasty topic published after January 1, 2022. Use of gender- or sex-based terminology, whether use was discriminate, and whether stratification or adjustment based on gender or sex was performed, were recorded. RESULTS: There were 98 of 100 articles that measured a construct of gender or sex. Of these, 15 articles used gender-based terminology, 45 used sex-based terminology, and 38 used a combination of gender- and sex-based terminology. Of the 38 articles using a combination of terminology, none did so discriminately. All articles presented gender and sex as binary variables, and 2 attempted to explicitly define how gender or sex were defined. Of the 98 articles, 31 used these variables for statistical adjustments, though only 6 reported stratified results. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroplasty articles infrequently describe how gender or sex was measured, and frequently use this terminology interchangeably. Additionally, these articles rarely offer more than 2 options for capturing variation in sex and gender. Future research should be more precise in the treatment of these variables to improve the quality of results and ensure findings are patient-centered and inclusive.

Does Scheduled Low-Dose Short-Term NSAID (Ketorolac) Modulate Cytokine Levels After Orthopaedic Polytrauma? A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether scheduled low-dose, short-term ketorolac modulates cytokine concentrations in orthopaedic polytrauma patients. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single Level I trauma center from August 2018 to October 2022. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Orthopaedic polytrauma patients between 18 and 75 years with a New Injury Severity Score greater than 9 were enrolled. Participants were randomized to receive 15 mg of intravenous ketorolac every 6 hours for up to 5 inpatient days or 2 mL of intravenous saline similarly. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Daily concentrations of prostaglandin E2 and interleukin (IL)-1a, IL-1b, IL-6, and IL-10. Clinical outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, pulmonary complications, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: Seventy orthopaedic polytrauma patients were enrolled, with 35 participants randomized to the ketorolac group and 35 to the placebo group. The overall IL-10 trend over time was significantly different in the ketorolac group ( P = 0.043). IL-6 was 65.8% higher at enrollment compared to day 3 ( P < 0.001) when aggregated over both groups. There was no significant treatment effect for prostaglandin E2, IL-1a, or IL-1b ( P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Scheduled low-dose, short-term, intravenous ketorolac was associated with significantly different mean trends in IL-10 concentration in orthopaedic polytrauma patients with no significant differences in prostaglandin E2, IL-1a, IL-1b, or IL-6 levels between groups. The treatment did not have an impact on clinical outcomes of hospital or intensive care unit length of stay, pulmonary complications, or acute kidney injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Incidence of Rapidly Progressive Osteoarthritis Following Intra-articular Hip Corticosteroid Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery recommends intra-articular corticosteroid injections (CSIs) for managing hip osteoarthritis (OA) based on short-term, prospective studies. Recent retrospective studies have raised concerns that CSIs may lead to rapidly progressive OA (RPOA). We sought to systematically review the literature of CSIs for hip OA to estimate the incidence of RPOA. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify original research of hip OA patients receiving CSIs. Overall, 27 articles involving 5831 patients published from 1988 to 2022 were included. Study design, patient characteristics, CSI details, follow-up, and cases of RPOA were recorded. Studies were classified by their ability to detect RPOA based on follow-up. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the incidence of RPOA for studies able to detect RPOA. Results: The meta-analytic estimate of RPOA incidence was 6% (95% confidence interval, 3%-9%) based on 10 articles classified as able to detect RPOA. RPOA definitions varied from progression of OA within 6 months to the presence of destructive changes. These studies were subject to bias from excluding patients with missing post-CSI radiographs. The remaining 17 articles were classified as unable to detect RPOA, including all of the studies cited in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery recommendation. Conclusions: The incidence of RPOA after CSIs remains unknown due to variation in definitions and follow-up. While RPOA following CSIs may be 6%, many cases are not severe, and this may reflect selection bias. Further research is needed to understand whether clinically significant RPOA is incident enough to limit CSI use.

The Student You Know: Orthopedic Surgery Home Program Match Rates and Geographic Relationships Before and After COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: In March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. This led to the outright cancellation of away rotations and in person residency interviews for the class of 2021. This study aims to identify the geographic relationships in the orthopedic match and further explore COVID-19's effect on these geographic relationships. Furthermore, we aim to compare the home program match rates before and after COVID-19. SETTING: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery (tertiary, university-based). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Residency websites and social media sites were used to record basic residency information as well as each resident's year, matriculated medical school, and matriculated medical school geographic data. This information was used to evaluate the proportion of orthopedic residents from "home program" medical schools and evaluate the geographic relationship of matched orthopedic residents. 202 Orthopedic residencies were initially identified and 134 allopathic and nonmilitary residency programs met the inclusion criteria. In all, 3253 of the 3931 (82.7%) current U.S orthopedic residents were included in the analysis. RESULTS: In the 4 orthopedic surgery residency classes before the pandemic (2017-2020), 21.8% of residency slots were filled by home program students. During the pandemic match cycle (2021), this number jumped to 28.2% (p < 0.0006). The increase was observed consistently across residency subgroup analysis: class size, doximity rank, and doximity research rank. Correspondingly, there was a statistically significant increase from 34.7% (2017-2020) to 39.3% (2021) (p = 0.0318) in residencies matching with same state medical students. Regional trends stayed consistent. Our study showed that residency programs matched applicants who went to same region medical schools during the 2020 to 2021 cycle at nearly the exact same rate as they did pre-pandemic (63.6%, up from 63.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that despite widespread virtual away rotations and virtual open houses, residency programs showed an increased preference for their home program students. This trend was significant and widespread, highlighting the generalized nationwide hesitation of both residency programs and students on the virtual interview process.