Search

IntroductionCancer is the second leading cause of death among women in the United States. Previous studies demonstrate a higher prevalence of cancer among female orthopaedic surgeons. This study aimed to provide an updated prevalence of breast and all-cause cancer among female orthopaedic surgeons using a larger and more current study population.MethodsWe distributed surveys to female orthopaedic surgeons in national orthopaedic specialty societies. Six hundred seventy-two survey responses were collected. We calculated standardized prevalence ratios (SPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on gender-specific, race-specific, and age-specific cancer prevalence statistics in the US population. We compared the distribution of breast cancer risk factors with that of women in the 2018 and 2009 California Health Interview Survey.ResultsFifty-one of the 672 surveyed surgeons reported a diagnosis of invasive cancer. Twenty reported breast cancer with a prevalence higher among female orthopaedic surgeons compared with the US female population (SPR: 2.89, 95% CI: 2.16 to 3.81, P < 0.001). The breast cancer prevalence was also higher among orthopaedic surgeons compared with the US female population (SPR: 3.97, 95% CI: 2.43 to 6.14, P = 0.003).DiscussionThe increased prevalence of breast and all-cause cancer among a larger and more diverse cohort of female orthopaedic surgeons confirms previous studies and provides an update regarding a concerning public health issue within this specialty.

Background: Periprosthetic femur fracture is a known complication after THA. The associated risk of cementless femoral component design for periprosthetic femur fracture in a registry population of patients older than 65 years has yet to be clearly identified. Questions/purposes: (1) Is femoral stem geometry associated with the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture after cementless THA? (2) Is the presence or absence of a collar on cementless femoral implant designs associated with the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture after THA?. Methods: We analyzed American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to March 2020. Unique to this registry is the high use of cementless femoral stems in patients 65 years and older. We identified 266,040 primary cementless THAs during the study period in patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and surgeries linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare and Medicaid data where available. Patient demographics, procedure dates, and reoperation for periprosthetic femur fracture with revision or open reduction and internal fixation were recorded. The main analysis was performed comparing the Kheir and Chen classification: 42% (112,231 of 266,040) were single-wedge, 22% (57,758 of 266,040) were doublewedge, and 24% (62,983 of 266,040) were gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling cementless femoral components, which yielded a total of 232,972 primary cementless THAs. An additional analysis compared cementless stems with collars (20% [47,376 of 232,972]) with those with collarless designs (80% [185,596 of 232,972]). A Cox proportional hazard regression analysis with the competing risk of death was used to evaluate the association of design and fracture risk while adjusting for potential confounders. Results: After controlling for the potentially confounding variables of age, sex, geographic region, osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosis, hospital volume, and the competing risk of death, we found that compared with gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling stems, single-wedge designs were associated with a greater risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (HR 2.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.9]; p < 0. 001). Compared with gradual taper/metadiaphysealfilling stems, double-wedge designs showed an increased risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (HR 3.0 [95% CI 2.2 to 4.0]; p < 0. 001). Collarless stems showed an increased risk of periprosthetic fracture compared with collared stems (HR 7.8 [95% CI 4.1 to 15]; p < 0. 001). Conclusion: If cementless femoral fixation is used for THA in patients 65 years or older, surgeons should consider using gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling and collared stem designs because they are associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic femur fracture. Future investigations should compare gradual taper/metadiaphyseal-filling and collared cementless designs with cemented fixation in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Class III obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m2) is associated with higher complications following total knee replacement (TKR), and weight loss is recommended. We aimed to establish the cost‐effectiveness of Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass (RYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and lifestyle nonsurgical weight loss (LNSWL) interventions in knee osteoarthritis patients with class III obesity considering TKR. Methods: Using the Osteoarthritis Policy model and data from published literature to derive model inputs for RYGB, LSG, LNSWL, and TKR, we assessed the long‐term clinical benefits, costs, and cost‐effectiveness of weight‐loss interventions for patients with class III obesity considering TKR. We assessed the following strategies with a health care sector perspective: 1) no weight loss/no TKR, 2) immediate TKR, 3) LNSWL, 4) LSG, and 5) RYGB. Each weight‐loss strategy was followed by annual TKR reevaluation. Primary outcomes were cost, quality‐adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% per year. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of conclusions to input uncertainty. Results: LSG increased QALE by 1.64 quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) and lifetime medical costs by $17,347 compared to no intervention, leading to an ICER of $10,600/QALY. RYGB increased QALE by 0.22 and costs by $4,607 beyond LSG, resulting in an ICER of $20,500/QALY. Relative to immediate TKR, LSG and RYGB delayed and decreased TKR utilization. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, RYGB was cost‐effective in 67% of iterations at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusion: For patients with class III obesity considering TKR, RYGB provides good value while immediate TKR without weight loss is not economically efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]