RESUMO
PURPOSE: To survey orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors to determine the current research productivity of both fellows and faculty in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States. METHODS: An anonymous 18-question survey was distributed via e-mail to all 95 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Questions included whether fellows are required to complete a certain number of projects during their fellowship year and whether fellows have protected research time. RESULTS: Of the programs, 31 (33%) responded to the survey. Twenty-four programs (80%) require fellows to complete 1 to 4 projects. Twenty-one programs (71%) provide 4 to 8 hours of weekly protected research time. Twenty-four programs (77%) publish 1 to 2 manuscripts per fellow during the fellowship. Twenty-two programs (71%) have fellows work on 1 to 2 projects at a time. Annually, 26 programs (84%) give 0 to 5 podium presentations, 24 (80%) present 0 to 5 posters, and 15 (48%) report 0 to 5 publications. Twenty-four programs (77%) have research fellows and/or assistants to help with research. The presence of dedicated research assistants and more than 25 annual fellowship program publications were found to be useful screening data for more than 2 and more than 4 average publications per fellow, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The research productivity of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs may be an important consideration for applicants. Applicants who desire to be productive in research during their fellowship year should consider programs with dedicated research assistants and/or programs that publish more than 25 times annually. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is a descriptive epidemiologic study that helps define the research productivity landscape in orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. A more accurate understanding of sports medicine fellowship research experience may facilitate a better match between a program's research expectations and an applicant's research interests.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in a demineralized bone matrix scaffold is a comparable alternative to iliac bone autograft in the setting of secondary alveolar cleft repair. Postreconstruction occlusal radiographs demonstrate improved bone stock when rhBMP-2/demineralized bone matrix (DBM) scaffold is used but lack the capacity to evaluate bone growth in three dimensions. This study uses cone beam computed tomography to provide the first clinical evaluation of volumetric and density comparisons between these two treatment modalities. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted with 31 patients and 36 repairs of the alveolar cleft over a 2-year period. Twenty-one repairs used rhBMP-2/DBM scaffold and 14 repairs used iliac bone grafting. Postoperatively, occlusal radiographs were obtained at 3 months to evaluate bone fill; cone beam computed tomographic images were obtained at 6 to 9 months to compare volumetric and density data. RESULTS: At 3 months, postoperative occlusal radiographs demonstrated that 67 percent of patients receiving rhBMP-2/DBM scaffold had complete bone fill of the alveolus, versus 56 percent of patients in the autologous group. In contrast, cone beam computed tomographic data showed 31.6 percent (95 percent CI, 24.2 to 38.5 percent) fill in the rhBMP-2 group compared with 32.5 percent (95 percent CI, 22.1 to 42.9 percent) in the autologous population. Density analysis demonstrated identical average values between the groups (1.38 g/cc). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate comparable bone regrowth and density values following secondary alveolar cleft repair using rhBMP-2/DBM scaffold versus autologous iliac bone graft. Cone beam computed tomography provides a more nuanced understanding of true bone regeneration within the alveolar cleft that may contribute to the information provided by occlusal radiographs alone. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
