Abstract: Although previous studies have evaluated how the proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery has changed over time, these analyses have been limited by small sample sizes, have primarily used data on residents, and have not included information on growth across subspecialties and geographic regions. Question/purpose We used the National Provider Identifier registry to ask: How have the (1) overall, (2) regional, and (3) subspecialty percentages of women among all currently practicing orthopaedic providers changed over time in the United States? Methods The National Provider Identifier Registry of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was queried for all active providers with taxonomy codes pertaining to orthopaedic subspecialties as of April 2020. Women orthopaedic surgeons were identified among all physicians with subspecialty taxonomy codes. As all providers are required to provide a gender when applying for an NPI, all providers with queried taxonomy codes additionally had gender classification. Our final cohort consisted of 31,296 practicing orthopaedic surgeons, of whom 8% (2363 of 31,296) were women. A total of 11,714 (37%) surgeons possessed taxonomy codes corresponding with a specific orthopaedic subspecialty. A univariate linear regression analysis was used to analyze trends in the annual proportions of women who are active orthopaedic surgeons based on NPI enumeration dates. Specifically, annual proportions were defined using cross-sections of the NPI registry on December 31 of each year. Linear regression was similarly used to evaluate changes in the annual proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across United States Census regions and divisions, as well as orthopaedic subspecialties. The national growth rate was then projected forward to determine the year at which the representation of women orthopaedic surgeons would achieve parity with the proportion of all women physicians (36.3% or 340,018 of 936,254, as determined by the 2019 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile) and the proportion of all women in the United States (50.8% or 166,650,550 of 328,239,523 as determined by 2019 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau). Gender parity projections along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Holt-Winters forecasting algorithm. The proportions of women physicians and women in the United States were assumed to remain fixed at 2019 values of 36.3% and 50.8%, respectively. Results There was a national increase in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons between 2010 and 2019 (r 2 = 0.98; p 〈 0.001) at a compound annual growth rate of 2%. Specifically, the national proportion of orthopaedic surgeons who were women increased from 6% (1670 of 26,186) to 8% (2350 of 30,647). Assuming constant growth at this rate following 2019, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession (that is, to achieve 36.3% women in orthopaedic surgery) is projected to be 217 years, or by the year 2236. Likewise, the time to achieve gender parity with the overall US population (which is 50.8% women) is projected to be 326 years, or by the year 2354. During our study period, there were increases in the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons across US Census regions. The lowest growth was in the West (17%) and the South (19%). Similar growth was demonstrated across census divisions. In each orthopaedic subspecialty, we found increases in the proportion of women surgeons throughout the study period. Adult reconstruction (0%) and spine surgery (1%) had the lowest growth. Conclusion We calculate that at the current rate of change, it will take more than 200 years for orthopaedic surgery to achieve gender parity with the overall medical profession. Although some regions and subspecialties have grown at comparably higher rates, collectively, there has been minimal growth across all domains. Clinical Relevance Given this meager growth, we believe that substantive changes must be made across all levels of orthopaedic education and leadership to steepen the current curve. These include mandating that all medical school curricula include dedicated exposure to orthopaedic surgery to increase the number of women coming through the orthopaedic pipeline. Additionally, we believe the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual programs should require specific benchmarks for the proportion of orthopaedic faculty and fellowship program directors, as well as for the proportion of incoming trainees, who are women. Furthermore, we believe there should be a national effort led by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and orthopaedic subspecialty societies to foster the academic development of women in orthopaedic surgery while recruiting more women into leadership positions. Future analyses should evaluate the efficacy of diversity efforts among other surgical specialties that have achieved or made greater strides toward gender parity, as well as how these programs can be implemented into orthopaedic surgery.

Abstract: A lack of racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials may limit the generalizability of the orthopaedic evidence base as it applies to patients in underrepresented minority populations and perpetuate existing disparities in use, complications, or functional outcomes. Although some commentators have implied the need for mandatory race or ethnicity reporting across all orthopaedic trials, the usefulness of race or ethnic reporting likely depends on the specific topic, prior evidence of disparities, and individualized study hypotheses. Questions/purposes In a systematic review, we asked: (1) What proportion of orthopaedic clinical trials report race or ethnicity data, and of studies that do, how many report data regarding social covariates or genomic testing? (2) What trends and associations exist for racial and ethnic reporting among these trials between 2000 and 2020? (3) What is the racial or ethnic representation of United States trial participants compared with that reported in the United States Census? Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with human participants published in three leading general-interest orthopaedic journals that focus on clinical research: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume ; Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ; and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage . We searched the PubMed and Embase databases using the following inclusion criteria: English-language studies, human studies, randomized controlled trials, publication date from 2000 to 2020, and published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ; The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume ; or Osteoarthritis and Cartilage . Primary outcome measures included whether studies reported participant race or ethnicity, other social covariates (insurance status, housing or homelessness, education and literacy, transportation, income and employment, and food security and nutrition), and genomic testing. The secondary outcome measure was the racial and ethnic categorical distribution of the trial participants included in the studies reporting race or ethnicity. From our search, 1043 randomized controlled trials with 184,643 enrolled patients met the inclusion criteria. Among these studies, 21% (223 of 1043) had a small ( 〈 50) sample size, 56% (581 of 1043) had a medium (50 to 200) sample size, and 23% (239 of 1043) had a large ( 〉 200) sample size. Fourteen percent (141 of 1043) were based in the Northeast United States, 9.2% (96 of 1043) were in the Midwest, 4.7% (49 of 1043) were in the West, 7.2% (75 of 1043) were in the South, and 65% (682 of 1043) were outside the United States. We calculated the overall proportion of studies meeting the inclusion criteria that reported race or ethnicity. Then among the subset of studies reporting race or ethnicity, we determined the overall rate and distribution of social covariates and genomic testing reporting. We calculated the proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity that also reported a difference in outcome by race or ethnicity. We calculated the proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity by each year in the study period. We also calculated the proportions and 95% CIs of individual patients in each racial or ethnic category of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Results During the study period (2000 to 2020), 8.5% (89 of 1043) of studies reported race or ethnicity. Of the trials reporting this factor, 4.5% (four of 89) reported insurance status, 15% (13 of 89) reported income, 4.5% (four of 89) reported housing or homelessness, 18% (16 of 89) reported education and literacy, 0% (0 of 89) reported transportation, and 2.2% (two of 89) reported food security or nutrition of trial participants. Seventy-eight percent (69 of 89) of trials reported no social covariates, while 22% (20 of 89) reported at least one. However, 0% (0 of 89) of trials reported genomic testing. Additionally, 5.6% (five of 89) of these trials reported a difference in outcomes by race or ethnicity. The proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity increased, on average, by 0.6% annually (95% CI 0.2% to 1.0%; p = 0.02). After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as funding source, we found that studies with an increased sample size were more likely to report data by race or ethnicity; location in North America overall, Europe, Asia, and Australia or New Zealand (compared with the Northeast United States) were less likely to; and specialty-topic studies (compared with general orthopaedics research) were less likely to. Our sample of United States trials contained 18.9% more white participants than that reported in the United States Census (95% CI 18.4% to 19.4%; p 〈 0.001), 5.0% fewer Black participants (95% CI 4.6% to 5.3%; p 〈 0.001), 17.0% fewer Hispanic participants (95% CI 16.8% to 17.1%; p 〈 0.001), 5.3% fewer Asian participants (95% CI 5.2% to 5.4%; p 〈 0.001), and 7.5% more participants from other groups (95% CI 7.2% to 7.9%; p 〈 0.001). Conclusion Reporting of race or ethnicity data in orthopaedic clinical trials is low compared with other medical fields, although the proportion of diseases warranting this reporting might be lower in orthopaedics. Clinical Relevance Investigators should initiate discussions about race and ethnicity reporting in the early stages of clinical trial development by surveying available published evidence for relevant health disparities, social determinants, and, when warranted, genomic risk factors. The decision to include or exclude race and ethnicity data in study protocols should be based on specific hypotheses, necessary statistical power, and an appreciation for unmeasured confounding. Future studies should evaluate cost-efficient mechanisms for obtaining baseline social covariate data and investigate researcher perspectives on current administrative workflows and decision-making algorithms for race and ethnicity reporting.

Abstract: Although biomedical preprint servers have grown rapidly over the past several years, the harm to patient health and safety remains a major concern among several scientific communities. Despite previous studies examining the role of preprints during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, there is limited information characterizing their impact on scientific communication in orthopaedic surgery. Questions/purposes (1) What are the characteristics (subspecialty, study design, geographic origin, and proportion of publications) of orthopaedic articles on three preprint servers? (2) What are the citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric score per preprinted article and per corresponding publication? Methods Three of the largest preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square) with a focus on biomedical topics were queried for all preprinted articles published between July 26, 2014, and September 1, 2021, using the following search terms: “orthopaedic,” “orthopedic,” “bone,” “cartilage,” “ligament,” “tendon,” “fracture,” “dislocation,” “hand,” “wrist,” “elbow,” “shoulder,” “spine,” “spinal,” “hip,” “knee,” “ankle,” and “foot.” Full-text articles in English related to orthopaedic surgery were included, while nonclinical studies, animal studies, duplicate studies, editorials, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A total of 1471 unique preprints were included and further characterized in terms of the orthopaedic subspecialty, study design, date posted, and geographic factors. Citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric scores were collected for each preprinted article and the corresponding publication of that preprint in an accepting journal. We ascertained whether a preprinted article was published by searching title keywords and the corresponding author in three peer-reviewed article databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Dimensions) and confirming that the study design and research question matched. Results The number of orthopaedic preprints increased from four in 2017 to 838 in 2020. The most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were spine, knee, and hip. From 2017 to 2020, the cumulative counts of preprinted article citations, abstract views, and Altmetric scores increased. A corresponding publication was identified in 52% (762 of 1471) of preprints. As would be expected, because preprinting is a form of redundant publication, published articles that are also preprinted saw greater abstract views, citations, and Altmetric scores on a per-article basis. Conclusion Although preprints remain an extremely small proportion of all orthopaedic research, our findings suggest that nonpeer-reviewed, preprinted orthopaedic articles are being increasingly disseminated. These preprinted articles have a smaller academic and public footprint than their published counterparts, but they still reach a substantial audience through infrequent and superficial online interactions, which are far from equivalent to the engagement facilitated by peer review. Furthermore, the sequence of preprint posting and journal submission, acceptance, and publication is unclear based on the information available on these preprint servers. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the metrics of preprinted articles are attributable to preprinting, and studies such as the present analysis will tend to overestimate the apparent impact of preprinting. Despite the potential for preprint servers to function as a venue for thoughtful feedback on research ideas, the available metrics data for these preprinted articles do not demonstrate the meaningful engagement that is achieved by peer review in terms of the frequency or depth of audience feedback. Clinical Relevance Our findings highlight the need for safeguards to regulate research dissemination through preprint media, which has never been shown to benefit patients and should not be considered as evidence by clinicians. Clinician-scientists and researchers have the most important responsibility of protecting patients from the harm of potentially inaccurate biomedical science and therefore must prioritize patient needs first by uncovering scientific truths through the evidence-based processes of peer review, not preprinting. We recommend all journals publishing clinical research adopt the same policy as Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® , The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research , removing any papers posted to preprint servers from consideration.

Abstract: Although telehealth holds promise in expanding access to orthopaedic surgical care, high-speed internet connectivity remains a major limiting factor for many communities. Despite persistent federal efforts to study and address the health information technology needs of patients, there is limited information regarding the current high-speed internet landscape as it relates to access to orthopaedic surgical care. Questions/purposes (1) What is the distribution of practicing orthopaedic surgeons in the United States relative to the presence of broadband internet access? (2) What geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic factors are associated with the absence of high-speed internet and access to a local orthopaedic surgeon? Methods The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Mapping Broadband in America interactive tool was used to determine the proportion of county residents with access to broadband-speed internet for all 3141 US counties. Data regarding the geographic distribution of orthopaedic surgeons and county-level characteristics were obtained from the 2015 Physician Compare National Downloadable File and the Area Health Resource File, respectively. The FCC mapping broadband public use files are considered the most comprehensive datasets describing high-speed internet infrastructure within the United States. The year 2015 represents the most recently available FCC data for which county-level broadband penetration estimates are available. Third-party audits of the FCC data have shown that broadband expansion has been slow over the past decade and that many large improvements have been driven by changes in the reporting methodology. Therefore, we believe the 2015 FCC data still hold relevance. The primary outcome measure was the simultaneous absence of at least 50% broadband penetration and at least one orthopaedic surgeon practicing in county limits. Statistical analyses using Kruskal-Wallis tests and multivariable logistic regression were conducted to assess for factors associated with inaccessibility to orthopaedic telehealth. All statistical tests were two-sided with a significance threshold of p 〈 0.05. Results In 2015, 14% (448 of 3141) of counties were considered “low access” in that they both had no orthopaedic surgeons and possessed less than 50% broadband access. A total of 4,660,559 people lived within these low-access counties, representing approximately 1.4% (4.6 million of 320.7 million) of the US population. After controlling for potential confounding variables, such as the age, sex, income level, and educational attainment, lower population density per square mile (OR 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.94]; p 〈 0.01), a lower number of primary care physicians per 100,000 (OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.97]; p 〈 0.01), a higher unemployment level (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.4]; p 〈 0.01), and greater number preventable hospital stays per 100,000 (OR 1.01 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.02]; p 〈 0.01) were associated with increased odds of being a low-access county (though the effect size of the finding was small for population density and number of primary care physicians). Stated another way, each additional person per square mile was associated with an 8% (95% CI 6% to 10%; p 〈 0.01) decrease in the odds of being a low-access county, and each additional percentage point of unemployment was associated with a 30% (95% CI 20% to 40%) increase in the odds of being a low-access county. Conclusion Despite the potential for telehealth programs to improve the delivery of high-quality orthopaedic surgical care, broadband internet access remains a major barrier to implementation. Until targeted investments are made to expand broadband infrastructure across the country, health systems, policymakers, and surgeon leaders must capitalize on existing federal subsidy programs, such as the lifeline or affordability connectivity initiatives, to reach unemployed patients living in economically depressed regions. The incorporation of internet access questions into clinic-based social determinants screening may facilitate the development of alternative follow-up protocols for patients unable to participate in synchronous videoconferencing. Clinical Relevance Some orthopaedic patients lack the broadband capacity necessary for telehealth visits, in which case surgeons may pursue alternative methods of follow-up such as mobile phone–based surveillance of postoperative wounds, surgical sites, and clinical symptoms.

Abstract: As the landscape of medical education evolves with emerging technologies and the COVID-19 pandemic, e-learning platforms continue to gain popularity. Orthopaedic podcasts, a burgeoning e-learning platform, continue to gain traction; however, there is a paucity of information regarding their coverage of topics and their distribution over time. Therefore, our analysis sought to (1) characterize podcast content related to orthopaedic surgery, and (2) evaluate the changes in the prevalence of orthopaedic podcasts over the past 15 years. Methods: Three common podcasting platforms (Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify) were queried using the key terms “orthopaedic,” “orthopedic,” and “ortho” in order to identify a list of podcasts that are related to orthopaedic surgery. For each unique orthopaedic podcast, the title, the show description, the number of episodes, the date of the first episode, the date of the most recent episode, and episode frequency were collected. Podcasts were then classified based on a predetermined list of podcast domains. The number of existing active (released within the last 3 months) orthopaedic podcasts was then trended on a monthly basis from 2011 to 2020. Results: Ninety-four unique podcasts met inclusion criteria, 62 of which remained active as of October 25, 2020. The most common podcast domains were “general” (38 [40.4%]) and “clinical knowledge” (20 [21.3%] ). Among the assessed podcasts, 90 (95.7%) utilized an exclusively audio format. The majority of podcasts were based in the United States (89.4%), included introductory music (72.3%), and included interviews (63.8%). Most podcast hosts were practicing orthopaedic surgeons (52.1%). Between January 2016 and October 2020, the number of active orthopaedic surgery podcasts grew more than twelvefold (1,240%) at an average rate of roughly 1 new podcast each month (average, 1.0 podcast; standard deviation, 1.8). Discussion: The past decade has seen sizable growth in the number of readily available podcasts related to orthopaedic surgery. Additional research is required to independently assess the quality of these resources and their implications for remote trainee education.

Abstract: Although multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that orthopaedic surgeons receive greater transfers of value than other specialties, the industry payments of providers who are involved in the formation of practice guidelines have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the industry payments of the authors of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Methods: The publicly available AAOS web portal (OrthoGuidelines.org) was queried for all AUCs that had been released between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, regarding the management of musculoskeletal pathologies. A cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was conducted to determine the number and total value of industry payments to AUC voting committee members during the year of voting for the AUC. Industry payments for each orthopaedic surgeon voting member were compared with payments received by orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received any payment within the same year. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeon voting members who received any industry payment was compared with the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received payments. Results: Our analysis included a total of 18 different AUCs with 216 voting members, 157 of whom were orthopaedic surgeons. Of the orthopaedic surgeon voting members, 105 (67%) received industry payments, a rate roughly comparable with the national average among orthopaedic surgeons (74%). For 7 of 18 AUCs (39%), the median payment per orthopaedic surgeon voting member was above the median among orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments nationwide that year. Qualitatively, orthopaedic surgeon voting members were more likely to receive payments in the form of royalties, licenses, or speaking fees than orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Conclusions: AUC voting members receive payments at frequencies and magnitudes that are roughly comparable with orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Whether voting panel members receiving payments at these rates is ideal or is in the best interest of patients is a policy decision for the AAOS and society at large. Our study confirms that payments are common and, thus, continued vigilance is justified.

Abstract: Background. Innovations in orthopaedic technologies often require significant funding. Although an increasing trend has been observed for third-party investments in other medical fields, no study has examined the influence of venture capital (VC) funding in orthopaedics. Therefore, this study analyzed trends in VC investments related to the field of orthopaedic surgery, as well as the characteristics of recipients of these investments. Methods. Venture capital investments into orthopaedic-related businesses were reviewed from 2000 to 2019 using Capital IQ, a proprietary intelligence platform documenting financial investments. Metrics categorized were investments by year, investment amount, and subspecialty domain as per the American Academy Orthopaedic Surgeons website. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for both quantity and dollar amount of investments was calculated over the study period and the two decade-long periods (2000–2009 and 2010–2019). Results. Over two decades, 673 VC investments took place, involving a total of US$3.5 billion. Both the number and dollar value of investments were greater in the second decade (440, US$1.9 billion), compared to the first decade (233, US$1.6 billion). Both quantity and dollar amount of VC investments grew over the first decade, with a CAGR 9.53% and 4.97%, respectively. However, investment growth declined in the latter decade. The largest and most frequent investments took place within spine surgery and adult reconstruction. Conclusion. An initially rising trend in VC investment in orthopaedic-related businesses may have plateaued over the past decade. These findings may have important implications for continued investment into orthopaedic innovations and collaboration between the surgical community and private sector.

Abstract: Investigations into reimbursement trends for primary and revision arthroplasty procedures have demonstrated a steady decline over the past several years. Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) due to infection (rTHA-I) has been associated with higher resource utilization and complexity, but long-term inflation-adjusted data have yet to be compared between rTHA-I and rTHA due to aseptic complications (rTHA-A). The present study was performed to analyze temporal reimbursement trends regarding rTHA-I procedures compared with those for rTHA-A procedures. Methods: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements associated with 1-stage and 2-stage rTHA-I as well as 1-stage rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for rTHA were grouped according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons coding reference guide. Monetary values were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2019 U.S. dollars) and used to calculate the cumulative and average annual percent changes in reimbursement. Results: Following inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-A decreased by a mean [and standard deviation] of 27.26% ± 3.57% (from $2,209.11 in 2002 to $1,603.20 in 2019) for femoral component revision, 27.41% ± 3.57% (from $2,130.55 to $1,542.91) for acetabular component revision, and 27.50% ± 2.56% (from $2,775.53 to $2,007.61) for both-component revision. Similarly, for a 2-stage rTHA-I, the mean reimbursement declined by 18.74% ± 3.87% (from $2,063.36 in 2002 to $1,673.36 in 2019) and 24.45% ± 3.69% (from $2,328.79 to $1,755.45) for the explantation and reimplantation stages, respectively. The total decline in physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-I ($1,020.64 ± $233.72) was significantly greater than that for rTHA-A ($580.72 ± $107.22; p 〈 0.00001). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated a consistent devaluation of both rTHA-I and rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019, with a larger deficit seen for rTHA-I. A continuation of this trend could create substantial disincentives for physicians to perform such procedures and limit access to care at the population level. Level of Evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.