Search

Background: The study is intended to show that the operative quality of a resident in orthopedic trauma surgery is comparable to that of a senior physician in the most common orthopaedic trauma surgeries (Plate osteosynthesis in ankle fractures and distal radius fractures, ESIN in pediatric forearm fractures, implantation of a proximal femoral nail in pertrochanteric femur fractures and hemiarthroplasty in femoral neck fractures) with appropriate supervision by a senior physician. With only minimal deviations in the operating time, which is becoming increasingly relevant in everyday clinical practice, surgical training of residents could be supported., Material and Methods: 200 patients of the above-mentioned fracture patterns each, who were treated surgically between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, were detected and categorized. In particular, a qualitative characteristic was determined for each fracture on the basis of the standard pre and postoperative X-rays taken during surgery and statistically evaluated with the surgery time, the fracture classification and the training status of the anonymized surgeon. Anonymized x-rays were evaluated by 2 senior physicians and 2 residents., Results: Operations were performed by residents in 33.5 % of the cases (ankle fractures 42.0%; distal radius fractures 30.5%; pediatric forearm fractures 30.5%; pertrochanteric femur fractures 50.5%; femoral neck fractures 14.0%). Surgical complication rate was 4.8% in the resident group and 9.0% in the attending surgeon group. Revision surgeries were performed in 2.1% of resident cases, and in 4.1% of attending surgeon cases. In the resident group, time of surgery was 7.4 min longer for ankle fractures, 4.4 min for distal radius fractures, 2.8 min for forearm fractures, 2.3 min longer in proximal femur fractures 8.2 min longer for femoral neck fractures. No statistically significant difference in radiological outcome was observed in any of the groups after evaluation of the x-rays., Conclusion: This study shows that only slightly more than one third of all mentioned operations are performed by residents, although there is no statistical difference in quality. The operating time is extended on average by only 5 minutes. The surgical complication rate as well as the revision rate is higher in the group of senior physicians, whereby the more complicated fractures were treated by them. Resident involvement in trauma surgery is therefore not associated with increased morbidity or mortality of patients., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgery for spinal disorders represents some of the commonest surgical procedures performed in many countries worldwide, carried out by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. Residency training is shifting to competency-based medical education, which requires setting standards for graduating residents and their assessments. However, gaps exist in the literature regarding the parameters used for assessment and the mastery levels expected of graduating residents in the performance of common spinal procedures as defined in Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). The objectives of the study were to describe the assessment parameters used for residents, identify the standard of performance expected of graduating residents of EPAs of spinal procedures, and identify factors predicting the expected standard of competent performance of graduating residents., Methods: The survey was sent to neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery Faculty requesting their recommendations on parameters of assessment and the expected standard competence performance for EPAs related to spinal procedures using our entrustment scale (A-E)., Results: Based on total responses, the recommended number of assessments and assessors for each EPA was 5 and 2, respectively. Regarding each specialty, there was no significant difference in the recommended number of assessments for each EPA. However, neurosurgery Faculty recommended higher number of assessors(n = 3) than orthopedic surgery Faculty(n = 2) for both posterior spinal decompression EPA(PSD) (p = 0.01) and spinal instrumentation EPA(SI) (p = 0.04). Based on total responses, 83% felt PSD was appropriate to the general practice, 86.8% considered it not too broad, and 62.3% expected entrustment level E as a graduation target. The proportions of these ratings were slightly lower for SI at 58.5%, 71.7% and 56.6%, respectively. Both specialties indicated that the EPAs were not too broad. In contrast, neurosurgery Faculty were more likely to consider these EPAs appropriate for general practice than orthopedic surgery Faculty for both PSD (94.7% vs 53.3%, p = 0.0003) and SI (68.4% vs 33.3%, p = 0.02). Moreover, neurosurgery Faculty had a higher expected standard of performance as a graduation target for both PSD (Level E 76.3% vs 26.7%, p = 0.001) and SI (Level E 65.8% vs 33.3%, p = 0.03) than orthopedic surgery Faculty. Expectations of entrustment level E for PSD was associated with the belief that the current EPA was appropriate for the general practice of their specialty with an odds ratio of 8.35 (p = 0.01, 95%CI 1.53-45.67)., Conclusions: A difference exists in parameters of assessment and expected standard competence performance of spine procedures among spinal surgery specialties. In our opinion, there should be efforts to develop consensus between specialties for the sake of uniform delivery of high-quality care for patients regardless of the specialty of their surgeon. Our results will be particularly valuable to certification bodies in the assessment of spinal milestones. This study has important implications for the design of residency and fellowship education in spinal surgery internationally., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Skulsampaopol et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Effective pain management following discharge is critical for postoperative recovery, with pain self-efficacy serving as a crucial component in this process. Patient education plays a key role in enhancing self-efficacy. Among various educational modalities, a growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of video-based methods., Local Problem: A lack of evidence-based pain education programs for patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery was identified at an urban academic hospital on the East Coast of the United States. This quality improvement project aimed to develop and assess a video-based pain education program, focusing on pain self-efficacy and self-reported preparedness among adult patients prescribed opioids for postsurgical pain., Methods: This project adopted a pretest-posttest design, utilizing the knowledge-to-action framework. Data collection spanned 3 months. Among the 69 patients screened for eligibility, 13 participants were included in the analysis. The primary intervention consisted of a 15-minute educational video covering essential pain management aspects. Following the intervention, pain self-efficacy and self-reported preparedness were evaluated using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and a five-point Likert scale, respectively., Results: Median (IQR) scores on the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire increased significantly from 20 (16) to 32 (14) (p < .01). Mean (SD) scores for patients' self-reported preparedness also increased from 21.92 (6.53) to 31.85 (2.41) (p < .01). All participants reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the educational intervention., Conclusion: Video-based education is a time-efficient and cost-effective approach. Healthcare providers can consider integrating video education to enhance pain self-efficacy in the postoperative phase, thus enhancing postsurgical pain outcomes and overall recovery experience., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess students from medical schools without a home orthopaedic residency program when applying for a residency position in orthopaedic surgery in terms of metrics utilized by program directors in the Match. An anonymous survey consisting of 23 questions was distributed to graduates of six different medical schools without a home orthopaedic residency program who successfully matched into orthopaedic residency over the past 6 years. Forty-three total responses were received. The number of honors achieved in the junior clerkship phase, mean United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 and step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) exam scores, number of away rotations, and number of orthopaedic research publications in surgery and total publications overall at the time of application were determined. Graduates of medical schools without a home orthopaedic residency program who successfully matched performed at a higher level across all metrics compared with national match data and the orthopaedic literature. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(3):172-177, 2024).

Background: Assessment of orthopaedic surgery trainees is traditionally based on subjective evaluation by faculty. The recent push for value-based health care has placed a premium on improving patient outcomes. As a result, surgical training evaluations for orthopaedic trainees are evolving to include more objective measures to evaluate competency., Purpose: To develop and subsequently demonstrate the efficacy of a novel surgical skills assessment for orthopaedic sports medicine fellows., Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: A team of 14 fellowship-trained orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons developed objective scoring rubrics for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and rotator cuff repair (RCR) using a modified Delphi process. Rubrics were designed based on 10 surgical steps with a grading scale (1-5) based on core competencies with a maximum summative score of 50. Fourteen orthopaedic fellows across a regionally diverse group of sports medicine-accredited fellowship programs were invited to complete both an ACLR and RCR in a surgical skills laboratory at the beginning and end of their fellowship year. Individual surgical steps, overall performance, and total procedure time were evaluated by a single sports medicine surgeon for both sessions., Results: Thirteen of 14 fellows completed both pre- and post-fellowship assessments. For the ACLR procedure, the pre-fellowship mean summative score was 25.4 (SD, 4.4) and the post-fellowship mean summative score was 38.6 (SD, 4.1), which was a statistically significant improvement ( P < .001). For the RCR procedure, the pre-fellowship mean summative score was 26.6 (SD, 5.4) and the post-fellowship mean summative score was 38.8 (SD, 4.3), which was also a statistically significant improvement ( P < .001). The mean time to completion for the ACLR procedure was 82.3 minutes (SD, 4.3 minutes) pre-fellowship, which improved to 69.7 minutes (SD, 11.6 minutes) post-fellowship ( P = .002). The mean time to completion for the RCR procedure was 85.5 minutes (SD, 5.0 minutes) pre-fellowship, which improved to 76.4 minutes (SD, 7.0 minutes) post-fellowship ( P < .001)., Conclusion: This surgical skills program represents the first standardized and reproducible instrument for the evaluation of 2 arthroscopic sports medicine procedures in the United States. Orthopaedic sports medicine fellows improved significantly in aggregate over their fellowship year with regard to the ACLR and RCR. The described program has the potential to serve as both a training tool and formal orthopaedic sports medicine fellow assessment., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was supported by funding from The Aircast Foundation. C.L.C. has received consulting fees from Arthrex. M.J.M. has received consulting fees from Breg Inc, Arthrex Inc, Ostesys, Heron Therapeutics, and Schwartz Biomedical; and support for education from Elite Orthopedics; he is chair of the NFL research and innovation committee. J.R.D. has received consulting fees from Arthex Inc, DJO, and Royal Biologics; royalties from Arthrex Inc and In2Bones; research support from Mitek, Smith + Nephew, Arthrex Inc, and Biomet; and hospitality payments from Stryker; he has stock options in Topical Gear. A.S.R. has received consulting fees from Smith + Nephew, Anika, NewClip, Cervos, Moximed, ConMed, Bodycad, Arthrex, Flexion Therapeutics, Stryker, Heron Therapeutics, and Xiros; and payments for educational support from Gotham Surgical Solutions and Devices; he has stock or stock options in Enhatch and Conformis. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the instructional efficacy of a 3D Surgical Training System (3DSTS), which combines real surgical footage with high-definition 3D animations, against conventional surgical videos and textbooks in the context of orthopedic proximal humerus fracture surgeries., Design: Before the experiment, 89 participants completed a pre-educational knowledge assessment. They were then randomized into 3 groups: the 3DSTS group (n = 30), the surgical video (SV) group (n = 29), and the textbook group (n = 30). After their respective teaching courses, all participants took a posteducational assessment and completed a perceived cognitive load test. The 3DSTS group also filled out a satisfaction survey. Once all assessments were finished, the SV and textbook groups were introduced to the 3DSTS course and subsequently completed a satisfaction survey. All statistical analyses were executed using IBM SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). For data fitting normal distribution, we employed one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests, whereas, for non-normally distributed data, we used Kruskal-Wallis H tests and Dunn's tests. The significance level for all tests was set at p < 0.05., Setting: Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, P. R. China., Participants: About 89 doctors who undergoing standardized residents training., Result: The initial assessment scores among the three groups were comparable, showing no significant statistical difference. Post-education revealed a marked difference in the scores, with the 3DSTS group outperforming both the SV and textbook groups. Specifically, the 3DSTS group exhibited statistically greater improvement in areas such as procedural steps, and specialized surgical techniques compared to the SV and textbook groups. During the 3DSTS teaching process, participants reported the least perceived cognitive load and expressed strong satisfaction, highlighting that the instructional materials are well-prepared, and considering this teaching method superior and more innovative than previous courses they had encountered., Conclusion: The 3D Surgical Training System, integrating real videos with 3D animations, significantly enhances orthopedic surgery education over conventional methods, providing improved comprehension, lower cognitive load, and standardized learning outcomes. Its efficacy and high participant satisfaction underscore its potential for broader adoption in surgical disciplines. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov ID: ChiCTR2300074730., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Overall, the potential utility of immersive virtual reality (iVR) technology in orthopaedic surgery is promising. The attitudes of medical students and surgical trainees on virtual reality simulated surgical training have been overwhelmingly positive. However, further research and understanding of the attitudes of practicing orthopaedic surgeons and fellows are needed to appreciate its benefits for clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to establish the face validity of iVR technology by assessing the attitudes of Canadian orthopaedic surgeons on the value of iVR for surgical training, clinical practice, and distance learning., Methods: Forty-three orthopaedic surgeons and fellows attended an iVR demonstration at an annual orthopaedic meeting. The view and audio from the lead headset were cast to a large screen so the audience could follow the procedure in real time. Immediately after the presentation, the audience members were asked to complete a paper questionnaire assessing their perceptions and attitudes toward iVR for use in orthopaedic learning, clinical practice and distance education and mentoring., Results: iVR was perceived to be valuable for the field of orthopaedic surgery providing face validity for the technology. All 13 questions were rated with mean Likert scores of five or greater, indicating a positive observed value for all 13 questions. The respondents indicated that iVR had value (score of 5 or greater) in each questionnaire domain, with agreement ranging from 78 to 98% for teaching and learning, 66-97% for clinical practice, and 88-100% for distance education and mentoring questions., Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that a group of Canadian sport medicine orthopaedic surgeons and fellows had favourable attitudes toward, and perceived that iVR has value in, orthopaedic surgical training, clinical practice, and distance learning and mentorship. The potential for utilizing iVR technology for distance learning, mentorship and global education appears promising., Level of Evidence: II., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. Laurie Hiemstra reports a relationship with Smith and Nephew Inc that includes: funding grants, speaking and lecture fees, and travel reimbursement. Laurie Hiemstra reports a relationship with CONMED Corp that includes: consulting or advisory, speaking and lecture fees, and travel reimbursement. Laurie Hiemstra is on the advisory board (unpaid) and has stock options in PrecisionOS. Laurie Hiemstra is on the executive and board of ISAKOS and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of nonmedically trained evaluators and image- and video-based tools in the assessment of surgical skills in a key orthopedic procedure., Design: Orthopedic surgeons at varying skill levels were evaluated by their ability to repair a cadaveric bi-malleolar ankle fracture. Nonphysician viewers and expert orthopedic surgeons independently scored video recordings and fluoroscopy images of the procedure through Global Rating Scales (GRS) and procedure-specific checklist tools. Statistical analysis was used to determine if the evaluators and assessment tools were able to differentiate skill level., Setting: An academic tertiary care hospital., Participants: The surgical procedure was completed by 3 orthopedic residents, 3 orthopedic trauma fellows, and 4 orthopedic trauma attending surgeons. The procedure was independently evaluated by 2 orthopedic surgeons and 2 nonphysicians., Results: Operating participants were stratified by ≤ or >10 bimalleolar ankle fracture cases performed alone (inexperienced, n = 5 vs experienced, n = 5). Expert surgeon viewers could effectively stratify skill group through the GRS for video and fluoroscopy analysis (p < 0.05), and the video procedure-specific checklist (p < 0.05), but not the fluoroscopy procedure-specific checklist. Nonphysician viewers generally recognized skill groupings, although with less separation than surgeon viewers. These evaluators performed the best when aided by video and fluoroscopy procedure-specific checklists. Meanwhile, breakdowns of each tool into critical zones for improvement and evaluator-independent metrics such as case experience, self-reported confidence, and surgical time also indicated some skill differentiation., Conclusions: The feasibility of using video recordings and fluoroscopic imaging based surgical skills assessment tools in orthopedic trauma was demonstrated. The tools highlighted in this study are applicable to both cadaver laboratory settings and live surgeries. The degree of training that is required by the evaluators and the utility of measuring surgical times of specific tasks should be the subject of future studies., (Copyright © 2024 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: There has been increasing scrutiny on the standardization of surgical training in the US., Purpose: This study provides case volume benchmarks for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic spine surgery fellowship training., Study Design/setting: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of fellows at ACGME-accredited orthopedic spine surgery fellowships (2017-2022)., Patient Sample: N/A., Outcome Measures: Reported case volume during fellowship training., Methods: Case volume percentiles were calculated across ACGME-defined case categories and temporal changes assessed via linear regression. Variability between the highest and lowest deciles by case volume was calculated as fold-differences (90th percentile/10th percentile). Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential targets for case minimum requirements., Results: A total of 163 spine surgery fellows were included in this study. Total mean reported spine surgery case volume increased from 313.2±122 in 2017 to 382.0±164 in 2022 (p=.19). Most cases were classified as adult (range, 97.2%-98.0%) over pediatric cases (range, 2.0%-2.8%). An average of 322.0 cases were reported and most were classified as laminectomy (32%), posterior arthrodesis (29%), and anterior arthrodesis (20%). Overall variability in total case volume was 2.4 and the greatest variability existed for posterior instrumentation (38.1), application of cage (34.6), anterior instrumentation (20.8), and fractures and dislocations (17.3). If case minimum requirements for total reported cases was assumed at 200 cases, then all spine fellows included in this study would achieve this requirement. However, if case minimum requirements were assumed at 250 total cases, then approximately thirty percent of fellows (n=49) would not achieve this requirement for graduation., Conclusions: Increasingly, national societies and accrediting bodies for surgical education recognize the need for standardized training. This study provides benchmarks to inform potential case minimum requirements and help reduce variability during spine fellowship training. Future studies are needed to establish case minimum requirements for spine surgery fellowship training across comprehensive and granular case categories that cover the full gamut of orthopedic spine surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Case volumes of trauma centers and surgeons influence clinical outcomes following orthopaedic trauma surgery. This study quantifies surgical volume benchmarks for Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA)-accredited fellowship training in the United States., Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of orthopaedic trauma fellows graduating between 2018 and 2019 to 2022-2023. Case volume percentiles were calculated across categories and variability defined as the fold-difference between 90th and 10th percentiles. Temporal trends were assessed with linear regression., Results: 446 orthopaedic trauma fellows were included in this study. Mean reported case volume increased from 898 ± 245 in 2018-2019 to 974 ± 329 in 2022-2023 (P = 0.066). Mean case volume was 924 over the study period and mostly consisted of other (418 cases, 45 %), subtrochanteric/intertrochanteric femoral neck (84 cases, 9 %), open fracture debridement (72 cases, 8 %), pelvic ring disruption / fracture (55 cases, 6 %), acetabular fracture (41 cases, 4 %), tibial shaft fracture (39 cases, 4 %), and femoral shaft fracture (38 cases, 4 %) cases. Overall variability in total reported case volume was 2.0. Variability was greatest in distal radius fracture (14.8), amputation (9.5), fasciotomy (8.0), and proximal humerus repair (5.0)., Conclusion: Graduates from OTA-accredited fellowship training perform 924 cases on average, which exceeds the current minimum requirement of 600 cases. Case volume benchmarks can assist trainees and faculty align training goals with fellowship program strengths. More research is needed to determine evidence-based case minimum requirements for core competency training in orthopaedic trauma surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, faculty roles, and among residents in orthopaedic surgery. It has been suggested that having women in leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery may help to increase the gender diversity of residency programs. However, to our knowledge, no study has explored the relationship, if any, between the gender of the residency program director and the percentage of women in the residency program., Questions/purposes: (1) Is the program director's gender associated with differences in the percentage of women orthopaedic surgery residents? (2) Do women and men differ in the time to appointment of program director?, Methods: A list of 207 orthopaedic surgery residencies was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website for the academic year 2021 to 2022. The study excluded 6% (13) of programs; 4% (8) were those without ACGME accreditation and those with initial accreditation, and 2% (5) did not have updated 2021 to 2022 resident lists. Descriptive information on 194 programs was obtained from publicly accessible resources from July 2021 through July 2022. The institution's website and the American Medical Association's (AMA) Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) was used to collect residency program characteristics and resident demographics [ 2 ]. Doximity, Healthgrades, and LinkedIn were used to further collect current orthopaedic surgery residency program director demographics, including gender, age, and education/training history. To determine gender, photographs and pronouns (she/her/hers or he/him/hers) used in their biographies were used first. To confirm this, secondary sources were used including their NPI profile, which lists gender; Doximity; and their LinkedIn profile. Scopus was used to analyze research output by the program directors-using the Hirsch index (h-index) as the primary bibliometric metric. A total of 194 program directors were identified, of whom of 12% (23) were women and 88% (171) were men. Of the 4421 total residents among these programs, 20% (887) were women and 80% (3534) were men. A univariate analysis comparing program directors was conducted, with continuous variables analyzed using an independent-sample t-test and categorical variables analyzed using a Pearson chi-square test. With the numbers available, a post hoc statistical power calculation indicated that we could detect an 32% difference in the percentage of women in a program as significant with 80% power at the p < 0.05 level, whereas we might have been underpowered to discern smaller differences than that., Results: With the numbers available, we found no difference in the percentage of women in residency programs run by women program directors than in programs in which the program director was a man (22% [125 of 558] versus 20% [762 of 3863], mean difference 2% [95% CI -1.24% to 7.58%]; p = 0.08). Comparing women to men program directors, women had fewer years between residency completion and appointment to the position of program director (8 ± 2 years versus 12 ± 7 years, mean difference 4 years [95% CI 2.01 to 7.93 years]; p = 0.02) and had a lower mean h-index (7 ± 4 versus 11 ± 11, mean difference 4 [95% CI 1.70 to 6.56]; p = 0.03) and number of publications (24 ± 23 versus 41 ± 62, mean difference 17 [95% CI 3.98 to 31.05]; p = 0.01), although they did not differ in terms of their advanced degrees, duration of training, or likelihood of having taken a fellowship., Conclusion: Orthopaedic residency programs that were run by women did not contain a higher percentage of women residents, suggesting that the gender of the individual in that role may not be as important as has been speculated by others. Future studies should investigate the intersectionality of gender, race, and ethnicity of residents, program directors, and current faculty., Clinical Relevance: The fact that women were placed in program director roles earlier in career may also carry special jeopardy for them. Those roles are difficult and can impair a faculty member's ability to conduct individual research, which often is key to further academic promotions. Given that and the fact that the gender of the program director was not associated with differences in gender composition of residency programs, we believe that increasing mentorship and access to pipeline programs will help promote diversity in residency programs., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2024 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Objective: Remote OSCEs (Objective Structured Clinical Examination) are an alternative evaluation method during pandemic periods but they have never been evaluated in orthopedic surgery. We aimed to evaluate whether remote OSCEs would be feasible, and efficient for assessment of undergraduate medical students., Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. Thirty-four students were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups, either the conventional OSCE group or the digital OSCE group. Three types of skills were assessed: technical procedure, clinical examination, and radiographic analysis. Students were graded and they filled in a satisfaction questionnaire for both types of OSCEs., Results: The mean score, out of 20, was 14.3 ± 2.5 (range 9.3-19) for the digital sessions, versus 14.4 ± 2.3 (range 10-18.6) for conventional sessions (p = 0.81). Bland Altman Plot showed that 88% of students scored within agreement. The average global feedback was different for item repeatability, relevance, and OSCEs preference (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0001, and p < 0.0001 respectively). However, they did not report differences for the item concerning the organization (p = 0.2)., Conclusion: The results of this comparative study between digital and conventional OSCEs showed comparable distance learning scores between the 2 groups, whatever the skill assessed. However, the student's evaluation showed some reticence to conduct again OSCEs remotely., (Copyright © 2024 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Simulation models enable learners to have repeated practise at their own time, to master the psycho-motor and sensory acuity aspects of surgery and build their confidence in the procedure. The study aims to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a low-cost drilling model to train surgeons in the drilling task. The model targets three aspects of drilling - (1) Reduce plunge depth, (2) Ability to differentiate between bone and medullary canal and (3) Increase accuracy drilling in various angles. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted after obtaining ethics approval. We invited Consultants in the field of Orthopaedic or Hand Surgery to form the 'expert' group, and the 'novice' group consisted of participants who had no prior experience in bone drilling. We developed a drilling simulator model made from a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe filled with liquid silicone. This model cost less than US$5. An electric Bosch drill (model GBM 10 RE) with a 1.4 mm K-wire 10 cm in length (6.5 cm outside the drill) was used for drilling. The main outcomes of the study were time taken for drilling, plunge depth, ability to penetrate the far cortex and accuracy. Results: Thirty-one participants were recruited into the study, of which 15 were experts and 16 were novices. The experts performed significantly better for plunge depth ( t  = -3.65, p  = 0.0003) and accuracy ( t  = -2.07, p  = 0.04). The experts required 20% less time to complete the drilling tasks, but it was not statistically significant ( t  = -0.79, p  = 0.43). Conclusions: The low-cost drilling model could be useful in training Residents in the drilling task. It will allow Residents to practise independently at their own time and assess their own performance.

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Background: Digital transformation is shaping the future of orthopedics and trauma surgery. Telemedicine, digital health applications, electronic patient records and artificial intelligence play a central role in this. These technologies have the potential to improve medical care, enable individualized patient treatment plans and reduce the burden on the treatment process. However, there are currently challenges in the areas of infrastructure, regulation, reimbursement and data protection., Realising the Transformation: Effective transformation requires a deep understanding of both technology and clinical practice. Orthopedic and trauma surgeons need to take a leadership role by actively engaging with new technologies, designing new treatment processes and enhancing their medical skills with digital and AI competencies. The integration of digital skills into medical education and specialist training will be crucial for actively shaping the digital transformation and exploiting its full potential., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Virtual reality (VR) simulators have been introduced for skills training in various medical disciplines to create an approximately realistic environment without the risk of patient harm and have improved to more immersive VR (iVR) simulators at affordable costs. There is evidence that training on VR simulators improves technical skills but its use in orthopedic training programs and especially in curricular teaching sessions for medical students are currently not well established. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of a VR operating theater as an elective course for undergraduate medical students and to evaluate its effect on student learning., Methods: An elective course for 12 students was implemented during the summer semester of 2023. Using Oculus Quest 2 headsets (Reality Labs, Meta Platforms, USA) and controllers and the PrecisionOS platform, they were able to train five different surgical procedures. The courses were accompanied by weekly topic discussions and instructional videos. Students were assigned to two groups: group VR vs. group non-VR. The groups were switched after 5 weeks. User feedback and performance development (theoretical and procedural surgical knowledge) after VR training were assessed using three questionnaires., Results: The students highly appreciated the implementation of VR training into their curriculum and 91% stated that they would opt for further VR training. All students stated that VR training improved their understanding of surgical procedures and that it should be obligatory in surgical training for undergraduate medical students. After 5 weeks of training, students in the VR group achieved significantly better results (100 out of maximum 180 points) than the non-VR group (70 points, p = 0.0495) in procedural surgical knowledge. After completion of the VR training the VR group achieved 106 points and the non-VR group 104 points (p = 0.8564). The procedural knowledge for non-VR group after 5 weeks significantly improved after VR training from 70 to 106 points (p = 0.0087)., Conclusion: The iVR can be easily integrated into the curriculum of medical students and is highly appreciated by the participants. The iVR statistically improves the procedural knowledge of surgical steps compared to conventional teaching methods. Further implementation of iVR training in curricular teaching of medical students should be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Orthopaedic surgery training focuses primarily on the knowledge base and surgical techniques that comprise the fundamental and physical pillars of performance. It also pays much less attention to the mental pillar of performance than does the training of other specialists such as aviators, elite athletes, musicians, and Special Forces operators. However, mental skills optimize the ability to achieve the ideal state during surgery that includes absolute focus with the right amount of confidence and stress. The path to this state begins before surgery with visualization of the surgical steps and potential complications. On the day of surgery, the use of compartmentalization, performance aspirations, performance breathing, and keeping the team focused facilitates achieving and maintaining the proper mental state. Considering the similarities between surgery and other fields of expertise that do emphasize the mental pillar, including this training in orthopaedic residencies, is likely beneficial., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Context: The landscape of medical education in the United States has undergone significant changes, particularly with the rise of osteopathic medical students, constituting a substantial portion of medical school entrants. The merger of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) in 2020 opened residency slots to allopathic graduates that were previously historically allocated to osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians. This has impacted various medical specialties, notably orthopedic surgery. Despite an increase in orthopedic surgery applicants, the match rates for DO candidates have faced challenges, raising concerns about the impact of this merger on the future of orthopedic training for DO students., Objectives: This research aims to analyze the trends in orthopedic surgery match rates for DO vs MD applicants since the single accreditation merger, which began in 2015 with a 5-year transition period that was finalized by 2020. By examining factors such as application numbers, research output, standardized test scores, and program director preferences, the study seeks to identify disparities and challenges faced by DO applicants in securing orthopedic surgery residencies., Methods: This study utilized publicly available data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) 2018, 2020, and 2022 reports. Data encompassed applicant characteristics, including standardized test scores, research experiences, and match outcomes. The study also incorporated insights from NRMP program director surveys, focusing on interview and ranking practices. The analysis involved comparisons of application numbers, match rates, research productivity, and test scores between DO and MD applicants. Statistical analysis was employed to identify any statistically significant differences among the examined variables for the 3 years included in the study., Results: The research revealed a consistent increase in orthopedic surgery applicants from both DO and MD backgrounds. However, MD applicants consistently had higher match rates compared to their DO counterparts, with the gap narrowing over the years. Notably, disparities persisted in research output, with MD applicants demonstrating a significant advantage in publications and presentations. Standardized test scores, although slightly higher for MD applicants, did not significantly impact the differences in match rates. MD applicants had statistically significantly higher numbers of applicants ( P = .0010), number of publications ( P = .0091), and number of research experiences ( P = .0216) over the years examined. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the scores on Step 1 ( P = .5038) or Step 2 ( P = .4714) between MD and DO candidates., Conclusions: Despite progress in the acceptance and ranking of DO applicants by program directors, the study highlights enduring challenges in orthopedic surgery match rates between DO and MD candidates. The lack of research opportunities for DO students stands out as a crucial area for improvement, necessitating systemic changes within medical education. Addressing this disparity and ensuring equal access to research experiences could mitigate the gap in match rates, promoting a more equitable environment for all aspiring orthopedic surgeons, regardless of their medical background. Such efforts are vital to fostering inclusivity and enhancing opportunities for osteopathic medical students pursuing competitive specialties like orthopedic surgery., (© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the growing global interest in the role of augmented and virtual reality in surgical training. While this technology grows at a rapid rate, its efficacy remains unclear. To that end, we offer a systematic review of the literature summarizing the role of virtual and augmented reality on spine surgery training., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on May 13th, 2022. PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and Embase were reviewed for relevant studies. Studies from both orthopedic and neurosurgical spine programs were considered. There were no restrictions placed on the type of study, virtual/augmented reality modality, nor type of procedure. Qualitative data analysis was performed, and all studies were assigned a Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) score., Results: The initial review identified 6752 studies, of which 16 were deemed relevant and included in the final review, examining a total of nine unique augmented/virtual reality systems. These studies had a moderate methodological quality with a MERSQI score of 12.1 + 1.8; most studies were conducted at single-center institutions, and unclear response rates. Statistical pooling of the data was limited by the heterogeneity of the study designs., Conclusion: This review examined the applications of augmented and virtual reality systems for training residents in various spine procedures. As this technology continues to advance, higher-quality, multi-center, and long-term studies are required to further the adaptation of VR/AR technologies in spine surgery training programs.

Introduction: To improve transparency between candidates and training programs, a preference signaling program (PSP) was implemented before the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery match. The PSP allows applicants to 'signal' up to 30 programs, informing the program of the applicant's particular interest in interviewing for their available position(s). This study reports the perspectives of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants and program directors (PDs) on the effects of preference signaling on the orthopaedic match., Methods: Electronic surveys were distributed to PDs and applicants., Results: Almost all programs participated in the PSP (90%), and most of the applicants (97.6%) used 25 to 30 of their allotted preference signals. Most of the applicants (67.2%) thought that their likelihood of obtaining an interview was improved at 'signaled' programs but decreased at programs without a 'signal' designation (85.3%). Both applicants and PDs considered preference signaling to be one of the three most important factors for interview selection, along with Step 2 CK score and letters of recommendation. The applicants did not think that their likelihood of matching would improve with fewer allotted signaling tokens (35.2%), and 55.2% of PDs believed 21 to 30 tokens were optimal., Conclusion: Preference signaling is highly regarded by applicants and PDs. Signaling a program will likely improve an applicant's chance to interview. The optimal number of signaling tokens remains unknown, although both groups favored a larger allotment of tokens than has been seen in other specialties. Universal guidelines and recommendations for applicants and PDs would improve the utility of preference signaling., Competing Interests: This manuscript has not received grant funding, and no authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Despite widespread adoption for evaluating residency candidates, few studies have evaluated the orthopedic standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR). A systematic review using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was performed in June 2022. Study design and results from SLOR investigations were compiled. Common outcomes studied were summative rank statement scores and SLOR individual domains. Applicants were rated ranked to match or in the top one-third of rank lists in non-normally distributed frequencies. The association of summative rank statement score with match outcome was rarely studied. Applicants' ratings skew positively, the utility is reportedly limited, and influence on match outcome has been inadequately studied. [ Orthopedics . 2024;47(1):e1-e5.].

Competency-based veterinary education focuses on the knowledge and clinical skills required to generate a productive and confident practitioner. Accurate identification of clinically relevant core competencies enables academic institutions to prioritize which new and foundational information to cover in the limited time available. The goal of this study was to aggregate the opinions of veterinary practitioners about small animal core competencies in veterinary orthopedics. An online 20-question survey was distributed with questions regarding respondent demographics, education, practice type, caseload, involvement in orthopedic procedures, access to referral hospitals, frequency of orthopedic condition presentation and procedure performance, and proposed percent allocation of various orthopedic curriculum topics. Responses were included from 721 respondents, largely first-opinion veterinarians (81%, n = 580/721). The majority (58%; n = 418/721) of respondents performed less than 10% of the orthopedic surgeries themselves and, 37% ( n = 266/721) reported never performing orthopedic surgery; of those performing surgeries, 78% ( n = 354/455) performed less than six orthopedic procedures monthly. The five most common orthopedic conditions seen included generalized osteoarthritis, patellar luxation, cranial cruciate ligament disease, hip dysplasia/arthritis, and muscle/tendon injuries. Median respondent scores for the percentage that a topic should compose in an ideal orthopedic curriculum were 20% each for "orthopedic exam" and for "non-surgical orthopedic knowledge," 15% each for "non-surgical orthopedic skills," "orthopedic imaging (radiographs)," and "surgical orthopedic knowledge," 10% for "surgical orthopedic skills," and 2% for "advanced orthopedic imaging." Based on these results, a curriculum focusing on the most clinically relevant orthopedic conditions with an emphasis on diagnosis establishment and non-surgical treatments is proposed.

Currently, little is known about the differences in medical knowledge acquisition between osteopathic and allopathic orthopedic surgery residents. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) performance and training pathway in orthopedic surgery. This was a retrospective cohort study of all orthopedic surgery residents taking the OITE during the 2019-2020 academic year. Comparisons in OITE performance were made with parametric tests. A total of 4407 orthopedic surgery residents were in allopathic (86%) and osteopathic (14%) training programs. There was significant improvement in OITE performance between subsequent postgraduate year (PGY) levels among allopathic residents ( P <.001). Among osteopathic residents, OITE performance increased between PGY1 and PGY4 ( P <.001) but plateaued between PGY4 and PGY5 ( P >.05). At the PGY1 level, osteopathic residents had higher OITE performance than allopathic residents ( P <.001), but scores were equivalent at the PGY2 to PGY4 levels ( P >.05). At the PGY5 level, allopathic residents had higher OITE performance than osteopathic residents ( P <.001). Allopathic medical students scored higher on the Step 1 (248±19 vs 242±17, P <.001) and Step 2 (255±16 vs 250±15, P <.001) board examinations. Medical knowledge increases during orthopedic surgery residency. Disparities exist by training pathway, with osteopathic residents outperforming allopathic residents at the PGY1 level but then underperforming at the PGY5 level. Ultimately, this study provides insights into how resident promotion and training pathway impacts the acquisition of medical knowledge during orthopedic surgery residency. [ Orthopedics . 2023;46(6):379-383.].

Study Design: Descriptive., Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze trends in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in orthopedic spine surgery fellowship trainees., Summary of Background Data: Orthopedic surgery has consistently been labeled as one of the least diverse fields in Medicine. Although some effort has been made to combat this in recent years at the residency level, it is uncertain whether spine fellowships have had any changes in fellow demographics., Materials and Methods: Fellowship demographic data were collected through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Data collected included gender (male, female, and not reported) and race (White, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiians, American Indian or Alaskan Native, other, and unknown). Percentage equivalents were calculated for each group from 2007 to 2008 to 2020 to 2021. A χ 2 test for trend (Cochran-Armitage test) was done to determine whether there was a significant change in percentages of each race and gender during the study period. The results were considered statistically significant at P <0.05., Results: White, Non-Hispanic males represent the largest proportion of orthopedic spine fellowship positions each year. From 2007 to 2021, there were no significant changes in the representation of any race or gender of orthopedic spine fellows. Males ranged from 81% to 95%, Whites from 28% to 66%, Asians from 9% to 28%, Blacks from 3% to 16%, and Hispanics from 0% to 10%. Native Hawaiians and American Indians remained at 0% for all years included in the study. Females and all races, excluding Whites, continue to be under-represented in orthopedic spine fellowship., Conclusions: Orthopedic spine surgery fellowship programs have not made substantial progress in diversifying its population. More attention is needed to increase diversity in residency programs through pipeline programs, increased mentorship and sponsorship, and early exposure to the field., Level of Evidence: 1., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the student's perspective about educational and training efficacy of workplace based learning (WBL) during surgical clerkship in Orthopaedics amongst 4th and 5th year medical students., Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of General Surgery, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University, Islamabad, from September 2020 to December 2021., Methodology: The inclusion criteria was fourth and final year MBBS students who had completed their orthopaedic surgery mini-clerkship. The exclusion criteria was medical students who did not attend the orthopaedics clerkship in the study period. The research instrument was a questionnaire based on the principles of experiential based learning. The participants were sent an online questionnaire as well as a consent form through e-mail. The responses were recorded and analysed for descriptive statistics., Results: From the target group, 140 responses were received, 94 students (67%) expressed that workplace environment was conducive to learning and 98 (70%) agreed that their diagnostic and management skills further developed following exposure to the orthopaedic workplace. A short duration of 2 weeks served as a hindrance with 53 (38%) of students expressing that they were not able to effectively inculcate all concepts within that limited time-frame. Moreover, 52 (37.5%) students described limited patient's clerking time., Conclusion: Though majority of students were satisfied with teaching and learning strategies, design and implementation of the curriculum at the orthopaedics department; yet, there were significant limitations requiring further evaluation and cooperation by both students and faculty in order to establish ecosystem focusing on experiential learning., Key Words: Orthopaedics, Workplace based learning (WBL), Student, Clerkship, Learning environment.

Introduction: The Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) has maintained an accreditation process of orthopaedic trauma fellowships with various requirements including an annually reviewed list of qualifying trauma cases in the form of American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The correlation between these established and monitored CPTs and the actual practices of orthopaedic trauma surgeons has not been studied., Methods: American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery part II case logs (trauma subspecialty) (2012 to 2018) were compared with OTA fellowship case logs (2015 to 2019). Case logs from 447 surgeons and 166 trauma fellowship programs were compared. Four CPT code categories were defined: complex trauma (OTA required CPT codes, excluding Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] orthopaedic residency requirements), general trauma (ACGME residency required trauma codes), general orthopaedics (nontrauma ACGME residency requirements), and others (codes not included in residency or trauma fellowship requirements)., Results: OTA fellows performed a higher median percentage of complex trauma compared with American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery candidates (34% vs. 21%, P < 0.001): Both cohorts performed a similar percentage of general trauma (23%). OTA fellows performed more general orthopaedics (40% vs. 1%, P < 0.001). Several OTA required codes were performed infrequently (0 to 3 during board collection) by most surgeons, and several procedures are being performed that are not included in current CPT code requirements., Discussion: Early-career traumatologists are performing orthopaedic trauma procedures they were trained on during residency and fellowship, with varying complexity. Trauma fellows perform a higher percentage of complex trauma compared with early-career trauma surgeons. Continued surveillance is necessary such that educational improvements can be made to maximize the quality of trauma fellowship education., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: Advances in neural networks, deep learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) have progressed recently. Previous deep learning AI has been structured around domain-specific areas that are trained on dataset-specific areas of interest that yield high accuracy and precision. A new AI model using large language models (LLM) and nonspecific domain areas, ChatGPT (OpenAI), has gained attention. Although AI has demonstrated proficiency in managing vast amounts of data, implementation of that knowledge remains a challenge., Questions/purposes: (1) What percentage of Orthopaedic In-Training Examination questions can a generative, pretrained transformer chatbot (ChatGPT) answer correctly? (2) How does that percentage compare with results achieved by orthopaedic residents of different levels, and if scoring lower than the 10th percentile relative to 5th-year residents is likely to correspond to a failing American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery score, is this LLM likely to pass the orthopaedic surgery written boards? (3) Does increasing question taxonomy affect the LLM's ability to select the correct answer choices?, Methods: This study randomly selected 400 of 3840 publicly available questions based on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination and compared the mean score with that of residents who took the test over a 5-year period. Questions with figures, diagrams, or charts were excluded, including five questions the LLM could not provide an answer for, resulting in 207 questions administered with raw score recorded. The LLM's answer results were compared with the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination ranking of orthopaedic surgery residents. Based on the findings of an earlier study, a pass-fail cutoff was set at the 10th percentile. Questions answered were then categorized based on the Buckwalter taxonomy of recall, which deals with increasingly complex levels of interpretation and application of knowledge; comparison was made of the LLM's performance across taxonomic levels and was analyzed using a chi-square test., Results: ChatGPT selected the correct answer 47% (97 of 207) of the time, and 53% (110 of 207) of the time it answered incorrectly. Based on prior Orthopaedic In-Training Examination testing, the LLM scored in the 40th percentile for postgraduate year (PGY) 1s, the eighth percentile for PGY2s, and the first percentile for PGY3s, PGY4s, and PGY5s; based on the latter finding (and using a predefined cutoff of the 10th percentile of PGY5s as the threshold for a passing score), it seems unlikely that the LLM would pass the written board examination. The LLM's performance decreased as question taxonomy level increased (it answered 54% [54 of 101] of Tax 1 questions correctly, 51% [18 of 35] of Tax 2 questions correctly, and 34% [24 of 71] of Tax 3 questions correctly; p = 0.034)., Conclusion: Although this general-domain LLM has a low likelihood of passing the orthopaedic surgery board examination, testing performance and knowledge are comparable to that of a first-year orthopaedic surgery resident. The LLM's ability to provide accurate answers declines with increasing question taxonomy and complexity, indicating a deficiency in implementing knowledge., Clinical Relevance: Current AI appears to perform better at knowledge and interpretation-based inquires, and based on this study and other areas of opportunity, it may become an additional tool for orthopaedic learning and education., Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Innovations in orthopaedic resident educational resources and evaluation tools are essential to ensuring appropriate training and ultimately the graduation of competent orthopaedic surgeons. In recent years, there have been several advancements in comprehensive educational platforms within orthopaedic surgery. Orthobullets PASS, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Clinical Classroom, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery Resident Orthopaedic Core Knowledge each have their own unique advantages in preparation for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery board certification examinations. In addition, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones 2.0 and the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Knowledge Skills Behavior program each provide objective assessment of resident core competencies. Understanding and using these new platforms will help orthopaedic residents, faculty, residency programs, and program leadership to best train and evaluate their residents., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Objective: Two general pathways exist for spine surgery training in the United States: orthopedic surgery and neurological surgery. Previous studies have not quantified the impact of fellowship training when comparing case volumes between these 2 training pathways. This study compares reported spine surgery case volume upon graduation from orthopedic surgery and neurological surgery training., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of recent graduates from orthopedic surgery and neurological Surgery training programs in the United States (2018-2021). The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provided case logs for residents in neurological surgery and orthopedic surgery as well as fellows in orthopedic spine surgery. Case volumes were compared for adult and pediatric spine surgery cases using parametric tests., Results: Case logs from 3146 orthopedic surgery residents, 107 orthopedic spine surgery fellows, and 766 neurological surgery residents were included in this study. Across each cohort, neurological surgery trainees reported more total adult spine surgery cases than orthopedic surgery trainees (514 ± 206 vs. 383 ± 171, P < 0.001). Orthopedic surgery trainees reported more total pediatric spine surgery cases (21 ± 14 vs. 17 ± 12, P = 0.006)., Conclusions: Neurological surgery training affords a greater volume of adult spine surgery cases, but orthopedic surgery affords more pediatric spine surgery cases. Identification of relative strengths and weaknesses can help facilitate multidisciplinary training experiences in spine surgery., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study investigates the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education, research opportunities, and mental health in orthopaedic surgical training programs., Methods: A survey was sent to the 177 Electronic Residency Application Service-participating orthopaedic surgery training programs. The survey contained 26 questions covering demographics, examinations, research, academic activities, work settings, mental health, and educational communication. Participants were asked to assess their difficulty in performing activities relative to COVID-19., Results: One hundred twenty-two responses were used for data analysis. Difficulties were experienced in collaborating with others (49%), learning through online web platforms (49%), maintaining the attention span of others through online web platforms (75%), and in gaining knowledge as a presenter or participating through online web platforms (56%). Eighty percent reported that managing time to study was the same or easier. There was no reported change in difficulty for performing activities in the clinic, emergency department, or operating room. Most respondents reported greater difficulty in socializing with others (74%), participating in social activities with coresidents (82%), and seeing their family (66%). Coronavirus disease 2019 has had a significant effect on the socialization of orthopaedic surgery trainees., Discussion: Clinical exposure and engagement were marginally affected for most respondents, whereas academic and research activities were more greatly affected by the transition from in-person to online web platforms. These conclusions merit investigation of support systems for trainees and evaluating best practices moving forward., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Orthopedic surgeons frequently use fluoroscopy and flat plate X-ray in the operating room. As the length of surgeons' careers gets longer, the risk of potential for harm from radiation exposure also grows. Knowledge of the background and science of radiation, the C-arm, and various ways that surgeons can protect themselves is fundamental and should be incorporated into residency education for orthopedic surgery. This review provides information that we hope will better prepare residents in orthopedic surgery to use fluoroscopy and X-rays and protect themselves from radiation risks.

Introduction: On March 30, 2022, the American Orthopaedic Association's Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors announced its endorsement for a preference signaling program (PSP) for the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic residency application cycle. The purpose of our study was to assess orthopaedic surgery residency program director (PD) perceptions of the PSP and analyze potential effects of the PSP on the residency application process., Methods: A 19-question survey was distributed to 98 PDs (40.8% response rate). Contact information was obtained from a national database., Results: Most programs plan to participate in the PSP (87.5%). Preference signaling is highly regarded for residency selection, with PDs ranking its relative importance just below away rotation performance and personal knowledge of the applicant. Most PDs agreed that applicants will have increased chances of receiving interviews at programs they send a preference signal (65%). Most PDs also do not think that the PSP will help improve diversity (42.5%) and combat the overapplication phenomenon (67.5%). A majority think that an application cap limiting the total number of applications submitted should be initiated in future application cycles (85%)., Conclusion: Preference signaling will be one of the most important factors considered during orthopaedic residency selection. A signal will likely improve applicants' chance of receiving an interview. Thus, students should be selective about where they send their preference signals and invest time in creating strong, personal connections with a few, select programs to increase their success in the orthopaedic residency match., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on medical education. Due to concerns of the virus spreading through gatherings of health professionals, in-person conferences and rounds were largely cancelled. The purpose of this study is the evaluate the implementation of an online educational curriculum by a major Canadian orthopaedic surgery residency program in response to COVID-19., Methods: A survey was distributed to residents of a major Canadian orthopaedic surgery residency program from July 10 th to October 24 th , 2020. The survey aimed to assess residents' response to this change and to examine the effect that the transition has had on their participation, engagement, and overall educational experience., Results: Altogether, 25 of 28 (89%) residents responded. Respondents generally felt the quality of education was superior (72%), their level of engagement improved (64%), and they were able to acquire more knowledge (68%) with the virtual format. Furthermore, 88% felt there was a greater diversity of topics, and 96% felt there was an increased variety of presenters. Overall, 76% of respondents felt that virtual seminars better met their personal learning objectives. Advantages reported were increased accessibility, greater convenience, and a wider breadth of teaching faculty. Disadvantages included that the virtual sessions felt less personal and lacked dynamic feedback to the presenter., Conclusions: Results of this survey reveal generally positive attitudes of orthopaedic surgery residents about the transition to virtual learning in the setting of an ongoing pandemic. This early evaluation and feedback provides valuable guidance on how to grow this novel curriculum and bring the frontier of virtual teaching to orthopaedic education long-term., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The orthopedic surgery residency application process is highly competitive, and residency programs rely on objective measures, such as the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score, to assist in applicant selection. To deemphasize standardized test scores and improve student well-being, governing bodies have elected to change the Step 1 examination to a pass/fail grading system beginning in 2022. Given the utility of Step 1 in the orthopedic surgery residency application process, this change will significantly affect how applicants are assessed. To determine how this change will affect the process, we developed and validated a 19-item anonymous electronic survey and invited program directors (PDs) from orthopedic surgery residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to respond. The 86 surveys that were completed represented a 43.2% response rate (86 of 199). Only 4.7% of orthopedic surgery PDs believe that this change is a good idea, and 91.7% of PDs believe that the change will make it more difficult to compare applicants objectively. In addition, 90.7% of PDs report that they will increase emphasis on the Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge) examination in comparing residency applicants for their program, with 90.4% of PDs reporting that they will require students to submit their Step 2 scores via the Electronic Residency Application Service. These results indicate that changing the Step 1 scoring to pass/fail is unpopular among orthopedic surgery PDs. Further, losing the numeric Step 1 score will increase reliance on Step 2 scores and emphasis on less objective measures, such as where an applicant attended medical school. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(5):e257-e262.].

Family planning is a challenge for physicians at all stages of their careers, but particularly difficult during residency. Residency commonly occurs during prime childbearing years and is associated with long work hours and inflexible schedules. A commonly cited deterrent for women entering orthopaedic surgery is the inability to achieve a healthy and fulfilling work-life balance. 1 Further, those women who pursue starting a family during residency have been shown to have higher rates of pregnancy-related complications including infertility with complications rates as high as 30%. 2,3 In a recent AAOS article, a call to action for modified policies to prioritize the health of pregnant orthopaedic surgeons and their unborn children was made to decrease the overall risk to women who wish to have children during residency and early practice. 4 The University of Iowa has a history of attracting women into the orthopedic training program. We asked past graduates of the University of Iowa Orthopedic Residency program who had children during residency to share their personal experiences and opinions. We asked past graduates to answer five questions surrounding their pregnancy during residency. We have included the good, the bad, and the ugly with real-life testimonies in hopes that despite the statistics, women in our field considering pregnancy will find comfort in those that have been through it. Four prior residents were kind enough to share their experiences. Dr. Sarah Schippers (SS) completed residency in 2021 and is currently finishing a hand and upper extremity fellowship and will soon be starting private practice in Kansas. She shares on her experience regarding two pregnancies during residency. Dr. Tina Hajewski (TH) completed residency in 2021 and is also currently finishing a spine fellowship and will soon be starting private practice in Washington, sharing on her experience having two children during residency. Dr. Elizabeth Weldin (EW) completed residency in 2018 and is a current hand and upper extremity attending in Oklahoma and shares her experience having a child during residency and the contrast to having children during practice. Finally, Dr. Heather Campion (HW) completed residency in 2012 and is a current hand and upper extremity attending in Oregon and shares her experience as being the first Iowa orthopaedic resident to have a child during residency. Level of Evidence: V., (Copyright © The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal 2022.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine how orthopedic residency program directors (PDs) evaluate residency applicants who participated in a research gap-year (RGY)., Methods: A 23 question electronically administered survey was created and emailed to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) orthopedic residency PDs for the 2020-21 application cycle. PDs were emailed directly if active contact information was identifiable. If not, program coordinators were emailed. The survey contained questions regarding the background information of programs and aimed at identifying how PDs view and evaluate residency applicants who participated in a RGY. Descriptive statistics for each question were performed., Results: Eighty-four (41.8%) of 201 PDs responded. Most respondent programs (N=62, 73.8%) identified as an academic center. The most common geographic region was the Midwest, N=33 (39.3%). Few programs (N=3, 3.8%) utilize a publication "cut-off" when screening residency applicants. When asked how many peer-reviewed publications were necessary to deem a RGY as "productive," responses ranged from 0-15 publications (median interquartile range 4.5 [3-5]). Forty-one (53.3%) PDs stated they would council medical students to take a RGY with USMLE Step 1 scores being the #1 factor guiding that advice. More PDs disagree than agree (N=35, 43.6%; vs N=22, 28.2%) that applicants who complete a RGY are more competitive applicants, and 35 PDs (45.5%) agree research experiences will become more important in resident selection as USMLE Step 1 transitions to Pass/Fail., Conclusion: Program directors have varying views on residency applicants who did a RGY. While few programs use a publication cutoff, the median number of publications deemed as being a "productive" RGY was approximately 5. Many PDs agree that research experiences will become more important as USMLE Step becomes Pass/Fail. This information can be useful for students interested in pursuing a RGY and for residency programs when evaluating residency applicants. Level of Evidence: IV ., (Copyright © The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal 2022.)

Orthopaedic surgery is the least diverse of all medical specialties, by both sex and race. Diversity among orthopaedic trainees is the lowest in medicine, and growth in percentage representation is the lowest of all surgical subspecialties. Women comprise only 6% of orthopaedic surgeons and 16% of orthopaedic surgery trainees. This extreme lack of diversity in orthopaedics limits creative problem-solving and the potential of our profession. Women in orthopaedics encounter sexual harassment, overt discrimination, and implicit bias, which create barriers to training, career satisfaction, and success. Women are underrepresented in leadership positions, perpetuating the lack of diversity through poor visibility to potential candidates, which impedes recruitment. Correction will require a concerted effort, as acknowledged by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leadership who included a goal and plan to increase diversity in the 2019 to 2023 Strategic Plan. Recommended initiatives include support for pipeline programs that increase diversity of the candidate pool; sexual harassment and implicit bias acknowledgement, education, and corrective action; and the active sponsorship of qualified, capable women by organizational leaders. To follow, women will lend insight from their diverse viewpoints to research questions, practice problems, and clinical conundrums of our specialty, augmenting the profession and improving patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Women and underrepresented medical students are frequently unable to see, identify, or interact with an orthopaedic surgeon who looks like them. Simultaneously, these students are repeatedly challenged about their aspirations and questioned about their ability to become an orthopaedic surgeon. Ultimately, students from marginalized groups are unable to envision any future role as an orthopaedic surgeon and are actively diverted to other medical specialties. Nth Dimensions has developed programming that provides relatable role models, consistent positive affirmation, hands-on surgical and research experiences, and exposure to a community that expects for the scholars to succeed. In addition, Nth Dimensions has developed a series of best practices, or "steps," designed to help orthopaedic surgery training programs successfully recruit and retain diverse residents and faculty and ensure their success by providing a safe, all-inclusive learning and working environment., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Orthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive residency specialties in the National Residency Matching Program. To improve the odds of matching, senior medical students applying in the field participate in orthopaedic surgery away rotations with programs across the country. Students who do well on these rotations have a higher likelihood of matching because clinical performance is a principal criterion used by admissions committees to rank applicants. On the other hand, these rotations can be physically and emotionally taxing on medical students because poor performance can negatively affect their application and, thus, chances of matching at that institution. Unfortunately, the resources provided by medical schools to prepare students for these high-stakes rotations are usually sparse and unstructured. To address this gap in training at our institution, we developed a formal "boot camp" offered through the university to prepare interested senior medical students for their orthopaedic surgery acting internships. This course focuses on building a solid foundation of musculoskeletal knowledge and exposing students to surgical and procedural skills that are fundamental to the practice of orthopaedic surgery. Over the 2 years, this course has been offered at our institution, and it has proven successful in outcome measures, such as student satisfaction and preparedness, student orthopaedic knowledge, program director evaluations, and match rate. This article describes the novel 1-month curriculum, which includes lectures, laboratory, and clinical experience., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: Female surgeons, representing 6.5% of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, are particularly vulnerable to work-family conflict. This conflict may deter women from considering orthopaedic surgery as a specialty. The study objective was to identify differences in work-family integration between female and male orthopaedic surgeons in the United States., Methods: An anonymous survey collecting data within the domains of work, family, and satisfaction was completed by 347 orthopaedic surgeons (153 female, 194 male). Differences in responses between males and females were identified., Results: Female surgeons were younger than males (mean, 41.1 versus 50.1 years; p < 0.001) and earlier in their careers, with 60.3% of males in practice >10 years compared with 26.1% of females (p < 0.001). Consulting (7.8% versus 31.4%; p < 0.001), course faculty positions (19.0% versus 39.2%; p < 0.001), and academic and leadership titles (30.7% versus 47.4%; p = 0.002) were significantly less common among females. There was a significant income disparity between females (mean yearly income, $300,000 to $400,000) and males (mean, $400,000 to $500,000; p < 0.001). Females were more likely to have never married (12.4% versus 2.6%; p < 0.001), or they married at a later mean age (30.2 ± 4.7 versus 28.3 ± 3.9 years; p < 0.001). Females were more likely to have no children (29.4% versus 7.8%; p < 0.001), require fertility treatment (32.0% versus 11.9%; p < 0.001), and not have children until after completing their medical training (63.0% versus 31.1%; p < 0.001). Female surgeons reported more responsibility in parenting (p < 0.001) and household duties (p < 0.001) than males. Work-family balance satisfaction was 72.3% in females and 82.1% in males (p = 0.081)., Conclusions: This study highlights deficiencies in work-family integration that appear to uniquely impact female orthopaedic surgeons. Female surgeons delay starting a family, more frequently require fertility treatments, carry more responsibility at home, have fewer academic and leadership roles, earn lower incomes, and are less satisfied with work-family balance relative to males. The discrepancy in work-family integration must be addressed to attract, support, and retain women as successful orthopaedic surgeons., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G812)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Orthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties for residency applicants. For the 2021 residency match, the coronavirus-19 pandemic introduced complexity for programs and applicants because away rotations were limited and in-person interviews were cancelled. This may have changed the landscape in terms of expenses for candidates in important ways, but this topic has been insufficiently studied., Questions/purposes: Given that in 2021, students did not attend away rotations and all interviews were held virtually, we asked (1) What were the financial savings associated with this change? (2) Was medical school geographic region associated with differences in expenses when applying to residency?, Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2020 and 2021 Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency Dashboard database was performed. The data were derived from an online survey of a nationwide pool of applicants from 87% (123 of 141) of US allopathic medical schools upon conclusion of the match. The response percentage was 29% (521 of 1794). We believe this nationwide dataset represents the largest and most current data for this applicant group. Responses from applicants applying to orthopaedic surgery residency in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic application changes (2020) and during COVID-19 (2021) were queried and compared. After the orthopaedic surgery match, the database was evaluated for individual (application costs, away rotation expenses, and interview expenses) and total expenses for medical school seniors applying to orthopaedic surgery residency. Applicant characteristics were compared between application cycles. The 2020 to 2021 Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency Dashboard database had 521 responses (n = 263 in 2020 and n = 258 in 2021) from applicants applying to orthopaedic surgery residency. Demographic and applicant characteristics were comparable between application cycles. Median expenses are reported with percentile distributions and geographic comparisons. A Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in expenses between years and between medical school regions at a p value threshold of < 0.05., Results: For all applicants, the median total expenses (USD 7250 versus USD 2250), application costs (USD 2250 versus USD 1750), away rotation expenses (USD 2750 versus USD 250), and interview expenses (USD 2250 versus USD 75) declined in 2021 compared with 2020 (all p < 0.001). The median total savings in expenses for all applicants in 2021 compared with 2020 was USD 5000. In 2021, median total expenses were lower in all geographic regions with the greatest savings from applicants in the West (USD 6000); in addition, the difference in median total expenses between the geographic region with the highest total expenses and the lowest total expenses was lower in the pandemic year than it was in the year prior (USD 1000 versus USD 1500; p < 0.001). In 2021, there were differences in total expenses between the Northeast (USD 1750), West (USD 1750), and Central (USD 2750) regions (p < 0.001). From 2020 to 2021, only application fees from Northeast applicants differed (USD 2250 versus USD 1250; p < 0.001). In 2020, interview expenses were not different between all regions (USD 2250 Northeast and West versus USD 2750 Central and South; p = 0.19); similarly in 2021, interview expenses were similar between all regions (USD 75 versus USD 75; p = 0.82). Finally, in 2020, Northeast (USD 3250) and Western (USD 3250) applicants spent more for away rotations than Southern (USD 2750) and Central (USD 2250) applicants (p = 0.01). In 2021, applicants from schools in the South (USD 250) and Central (USD 250) regions spent more than their counterparts (USD 0; p = 0.028)., Conclusion: In the COVID-19 application cycle, the median expenditures of orthopaedic residency candidates were USD 5000 lower than they were in the previous year; the difference can be attributed to the use of virtual interviews and the lack of away rotations. There are geographic implications, with applicants from Western United States medical schools potentially saving the most. Despite the financial savings during the 2021 match, further study related to the long-term success of the current application process (both for applicants and programs) is needed. The recommendation in May 2020 by the AOA Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors (CORD) to limit the number of applications submitted by candidates with USMLE Step 1 scores greater than 235 did not result in any considerable decline in applications submitted or expenses. A better understanding of how differences in these expenses may influence our specialty's ability to attract socioeconomically diverse candidates would be important, and we need to explore perceived and actual financial obstacles to obtaining this diversity in the application process. Finally, avenues should be explored by program directors and chairpersons to reduce the expenses of the traditional application process while maintaining recruitment of top candidates., Level of Evidence: Level IV, economic analysis., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G565).

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for the author and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.