Search

Introduction:. Little is known about risk factors for changes in students' interest in orthopaedics during medical school. We aimed to identify variables associated with diminished (vs. sustained) and emerging (vs. no) plans to become board certified in orthopaedic surgery. Methods:. We conducted a retrospective national-cohort study of students who matriculated in US MD-granting medical schools in academic years 1993 to 1994 through 2000 to 2001. The outcome measure was the evolution of students' board-certification plans in orthopaedic surgery from matriculation to graduation using responses on the Association of American Medical Colleges' Matriculating Student Questionnaire and Graduation Questionnaire. Covariates included demographic, attitudinal, experiential, and career intention variables. Results:. Of 53,560 graduates with complete data, 2,765 students reported diminished interest in becoming board certified in orthopaedics, 1,345 reported emerging interest, and 1,327 reported sustained interest. In multivariable logistic regression models, students who were female (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-2.34), Asian (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18-1.82), reported greater importance of social responsibility (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.33) and prestige (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) in choosing a medicine career, and planned full-time university faculty careers (aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.33-1.89) at graduation were independently more likely to have diminished (vs. sustained) interest. Students who participated in research and/or authorship electives (aOR 3.50, 95% CI 3.00-4.07) and who attended private institutions (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10-1.39) were more likely to have emerging (vs. no) interest. Conclusions:. Twice as many students lost interest than gained interest in orthopaedics during medical school, and the cohort of students interested in orthopaedics became less diverse over the course of medical school. Several risk factors amenable to change were identified. Interventions that target these risk factors are warranted to increase the diversity of the orthopaedic surgery workforce.

Introduction:. Little is known about attrition before American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) board certification for orthopaedic residents training in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopaedics programs. This national-cohort study examined orthopaedic surgery attrition, associated risk factors, and specialties pursued by residents who left orthopaedics. Methods:. From August 2022 through July 2023, we analyzed deidentified, individual-level data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 129,860 US MD-granting medical-school matriculants in academic years 1993 to 1994 through 2000 to 2001. Graduates with records of training ≥1 year in orthopaedic surgery during GME and of board certification as of May 2020 were included. Retention was defined as being ABOS-certified; attrition was defined as being certified by another specialty board and not ABOS. We identified variables independently associated with attrition from orthopaedics using multivariable logistic regression analysis and reported adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results:. Of 4,319 US medical-school graduates from 1997 to 2009 with ≥1 year of orthopaedic surgery GME, 4,085 (94.6%) obtained ABOS board certification (retention) and 234 did not (attrition). Women (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.0-3.9), first-generation college graduates (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), Asians (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.7), and residents who placed greater importance on innovation/research in choosing medicine as a career (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7) and completed ≥1 year of research during GME (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.7-3.5) were more likely to leave orthopaedics. Overall, 121 trainees who left orthopaedics selected surgical specialties for board certification, most commonly plastic surgery (n = 66) and general surgery (n = 45). Conclusions:. The increased risk of attrition among women, Asians, first-generation college graduates, and trainees endorsing higher importance of innovation/research in choosing medicine and participating in research during GME raises concerns about the potential loss of underrepresented groups among orthopaedic surgeons and surgeon-scientists. Efforts to mitigate attrition among residents in high-risk groups are warranted.

Background:. The demonstrated benefits of virtual reality (VR) in orthopaedic surgical training are numerous. However, it is relatively unknown how best to implement VR into an already established orthopaedic resident education curriculum and how trainees will engage and use these technologies longitudinally. Methods:. This was an exploratory, qualitative research study performed in accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Orthopaedic surgery residents at a single institution were recruited during the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed through grounded theory methodology, beginning with open coding, followed by axial coding, and concluding with selective coding that describes orthopaedic surgery residents' current perceptions of VR as a training tool. Results:. Six residents participated in interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. Average interview length was 13:27 (±2:59) minutes. Residents felt that currently, VR is most useful for interns and junior residents as an educational adjunct for learning anatomy, surgical exposures, and the steps of a procedure in a risk- and judgment-free arena. There seems to be a “ceiling effect” with VR given current technological limitations, and residents remarked that there is an associated “opportunity cost” with using VR technology. Some residents may find it more time-efficient to study texts, videos, or surgical guides rather than use VR. Cost (limited number of headsets) and technological barriers (i.e., hardware, software, and Wi-Fi issues) were some of the described barriers to VR utilization. Residents felt that there needs to be dedicated technological support to help with these issues. At this time, given these limitations of VR, many preferred VR as an optional educational adjunct rather than as a required curricular tool or assessment of surgical competency. Conclusions:. There is current utility for VR in orthopaedic surgical training. Future technological advances may make VR more central to resident education. This study describes resident perceptions about the technology and best use practices for the technology. Level of Evidence:. Qualitative Study, Level V Evidence

Background:. Orthopaedic surgery is currently the least diverse medical specialty, and there is little research on the mentorship needs for women and underrepresented minorities (URMs) in orthopaedics. The purpose of this study was to examine the roles and functions of mentorship for women and URMs in orthopaedic surgery, to understand mentorship preferences, and to elucidate barriers to mentorship in orthopaedic surgery. Methods:. Members of J. Robert Gladden Orthopaedic Society and Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society were invited to participate. An email with an anonymous link to the survey was distributed; the survey was open for responses from September 2020 through February 2021. The survey contained free-response and quantitative items about mentorship and its impact on current activities, career path, and ways to improve mentorship. Descriptive statistics, 1-way analysis of variance, frequencies, and Fisher exact test were used to analyze survey data. Qualitative data were deidentified and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Results:. A total of 155 participants responded to the survey, of those, 151 (98%) met criteria for analysis. Sixty-four percent of participants were women, 15% identified as Black, 4% identified as Hispanic, and 9% identified as multiracial. Eighty-five percent of respondents had a mentor in orthopaedic surgery. Mentorship was often cited as useful for exposure to role models and skills development. Medical students were most likely to consider gender concordance with their mentor important. URM respondents reported greater importance of sharing race/ethnicity with their mentor (p = 0.005). In qualitative responses, participants commented on identity-specific challenges to mentorship, lack of time and institutional support for mentorship, and the disproportionate burden of mentorship on women and URMs. Conclusions:. Mentorship was highly valued among women and URMs in orthopaedic surgery across all career stages. Mentorship attracted students to orthopaedic surgery and allowed residents and surgeons to progress in the field. Sharing racial/ethnic identity in mentor-mentee relationships was important to both trainees and practicing surgeons.

Background:. Letters of recommendation (LOR) are an important component of trainee advancement and assessment. Examination of word use in LOR has demonstrated significant differences in how letter writers describe female and male applicants. Given the emphasis on increasing both gender and racial diversity among orthopaedic surgeons, we aimed to study gender and racial differences in LOR for applicants to orthopaedic surgery residencies. Methods:. All applications submitted to a single, academic orthopaedic residency program in 2018 were included. Self-identified gender and race were recorded. The LOR were analyzed via a text analysis software program using previously described categories of communal, agentic, grindstone, ability, and standout words. We examined the relative frequency of word use in letters for (1) male and female applicants and (2) white and underrepresented in orthopaedics (UiO) applicants, with the subgroup analysis based on whether standardized (using the American Orthopaedic Association template) or traditional (narrative) LOR were used. Results:. Two thousand six hundred twenty-five LOR were submitted for 730 applicants (79% men). Fifty-nine percent of applicants were self-identified as white, and 34% were self-identified as UiO. In traditional LOR, standout words (odds ratio [OR] 1.07; p = 0.01) were more likely to be used in letters for women compared with men, with no difference in any other word-use category. In standardized LOR, there were no gender-based differences in any word category. In traditional LOR, grindstone words (OR = 0.96; p = 0.02) were more likely to be used in letters for UiO than white applicants, whereas standout words (OR = 1.05; p = 0.04) were more likely to be used in letters for white candidates. In standardized LOR, there were no race-based differences in any word category use. Conclusions:. Small differences were found in the categories of words used to describe male and female candidates and white and UiO candidates. These differences were not present in the standardized LOR compared with traditional LOR. It is possible that the use of standardized LOR may reduce gender- and race-based bias in the narrative assessment of applicants.