Search

Background: Practice patterns regarding the use of unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fractures in older patients vary widely. This is due in part to limited data stipulating the specific circumstances under which each form of arthroplasty provides the most predictable outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the patient characteristics for which unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA might be preferable due to a lower risk of all-cause revision. Methods: A U.S. health-care system's hip fracture registry was used to identify patients ‡60 years old who underwent unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA for hip fracture from 2009 through 2021. Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared with THA within patient subgroups defined by age (60 to 79 versus ‡80 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (I or II versus III); patients with an ASA classification of IV or higher were excluded. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk while adjusting for confounders, with mortality considered as a competing risk. Results: There were 14,277 patients in the final sample (median age, 82 years; 70% female; 80% White; 69% with an ASA classification of III; median follow-up, 2.7 years), and the procedures included 7,587 unipolar hemiarthroplasties, 5,479 bipolar hemiarthroplasties, and 1,211 THAs. In the multivariable analysis of all patients, both unipolar (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48 to 3.12; p < 0.001) and bipolar (HR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.80; p < 0.001) hemiarthroplasty had higher revision risks than THA. In the age-stratified multivariable analysis of patients aged 60 to 79 years, both unipolar (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.34; p = 0.004) and bipolar (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.65; p = 0.022) hemiarthroplasty also had higher revision risks than THA. In the ASA-stratified multivariable analysis, patients with an ASA classification of I or II had a higher revision risk after either unipolar (HR = 3.52, 95% CI = 1.87 to 6.64; p < 0.001) or bipolar (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.19 to 4.49; p = 0.013) hemiarthroplasty than after THA. No difference in revision risk between either of the hemiarthroplasties and THA was observed among patients with an age of ≥80 years or those with an ASA classification of III. Conclusions: In this study of hip fractures in older patients, THA was associated with a lower risk of all-cause revision compared with unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty among patients who were 60 to 79 years old and those who had an ASA classification of I or II. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While recent reports have suggested that hip corticosteroid injections can hasten joint degeneration, there are few published data on the topic. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate for an association between corticosteroid injection and rapidly destructive hip disease (RDHD) and to determine the rate of, and risk factors for, occurrence. Methods: This study was conducted in 2 parts. First, to assess for a potential association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD, a case-control analysis was performed. Patients who developed RDHD between 2013 and 2016 served as cases, whereas those who underwent total hip arthroplasty for diagnoses other than RDHD during the same period served as controls, and the exposure of interest was prior intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection. Second, in a retrospective cohort analysis, we analyzed all patients who received a fluoroscopically guided intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection at our institution from 2013 to 2016. The rate of post-injection RDHD was determined, and logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for occurrence. Results: In the case-control analysis, hip corticosteroid injection was associated with the development of RDHD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.56 [95% confidence interval, 3.29 to 22.3], p < 0.0001). There was evidence of a dose-response curve, with the risk of RDHD increasing with injection dosage as well as with the number of injections received. In the retrospective cohort analysis, the rate of post-injection RDHD was 5.4% (37 of 688). Cases of post-injection RDHD were diagnosed at an average of 5.1 months following injection and were characterized by rapidly progressive joint-space narrowing, osteolysis, and collapse of the femoral head. Conclusions: This study documents an association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD. While the risk of RDHD following a single low-dose (<=40 mg) triamcinolone injection is low, the risk is higher following high-dose (>=80 mg) injection and multiple injections. These findings provide information that can be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with this common procedure. In addition, caution should be taken with intra-articular hip injections utilizing >=80 mg of corticosteroid and multiple injections. /p> Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Consensus guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that cemented fixation is more effective than uncemented fixation in hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures. Given that these recommendations are based on research performed outside the United States, it is uncertain whether these findings also reflect the US experience.Objective: To compare the outcomes associated with cemented vs uncemented hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 12 491 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent hemiarthroplasty treatment of a hip fracture between 2009 and 2017 at 1 of the 36 hospitals owned by Kaiser Permanente, a large US health maintenance organization. Patients were followed up until membership termination, death, or the study end date of December 31, 2017.Exposures: Hemiarthroplasty (prosthetic replacement of the femoral head) fixation via bony growth into a porous-coated implant (uncemented) or with cement.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the index procedure involving exchange of the existing implant for reasons other than infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, postdischarge, and overall), 90-day medical complications, 90-day emergency department visits, and 90-day unplanned readmissions.Results: Among 12 491 patients in the study cohort who underwent hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture (median age, 83 years; 8660 women [69.3%]), 6042 (48.4%) had undergone uncemented fixation and 6449 (51.6%) had undergone cemented fixation, and the median length of follow-up was 3.8 years. In the multivariable regression analysis controlling for confounders, uncemented fixation was associated with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77 [95% CI, 1.43-2.19]; P < .001). Of the 6 prespecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% for uncemented fixation vs 2.0% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.21]; P = .61) and overall mortality (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation: 20.0% for uncemented fixation vs 22.8% for cemented fixation; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]; P = .08).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with hip fracture treated with hemiarthroplasty in a large US integrated health care system, uncemented fixation, compared with cemented fixation, was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision. These findings suggest that US surgeons should consider cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the absence of contraindications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physician online ratings are ubiquitous and influential, but they also have their detractors. Given the lack of scientific survey methodology used in online ratings, some health systems have begun to publish their own internal patient-submitted ratings of physicians.Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare online physician ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system.Design: Retrospective cohort study comparing online ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system.Setting: Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated healthcare delivery system.Participants: Physicians in the Southern California region of Kaiser Permanente, including all specialties with ambulatory clinic visits.Main Measures: The primary outcome measure was correlation between online physician ratings and internal ratings from the integrated healthcare delivery system.Results: Of 5438 physicians who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4191 (77.1%) were rated both online and internally. The online ratings were based on a mean of 3.5 patient reviews, while the internal ratings were based on a mean of 119 survey returns. The overall correlation between the online and internal ratings was weak (Spearman's rho .23), but increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating.Conclusions: Physician online ratings did not correlate well with internal ratings from a large integrated healthcare delivery system, although the correlation increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating. Given that many consumers are not aware of the statistical issues associated with small sample sizes, we would recommend that online rating websites refrain from displaying a physician's rating until the sample size is sufficiently large (for example, at least 15 patient reviews). However, hospitals and health systems may be able to provide better information for patients by publishing the internal ratings of their physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior studies have documented racial and ethnic disparities in total hip arthroplasty (THA) outcomes in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to assess whether racial/ethnic disparities in THA outcomes persist in a universally insured population of patients enrolled in an integrated health-care system.Methods: A U.S. health-care system total joint replacement registry was used to identify patients who underwent elective primary THA between 2001 and 2016. Data on patient demographics, surgical procedures, implant characteristics, and outcomes were obtained from the registry. The outcomes analyzed were lifetime revision (all-cause, aseptic, and septic) and 90-day postoperative events (infection, venous thromboembolism, emergency department [ED] visits, readmission, and mortality). Racial/ethnic differences in outcomes were analyzed with use of multiple regression with adjustment for socioeconomic status and other potential confounders.Results: Of 72,755 patients in the study, 79.1% were white, 8.2% were black, 8.5% were Hispanic, and 4.2% were Asian. Compared with white patients, lifetime all-cause revision was lower for black (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.94; p = 0.007), Hispanic (adjusted HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.87; p = 0.002), and Asian (adjusted HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; p < 0.001) patients. Ninety-day ED visits were more common among black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.25; p = 0.002) and Hispanic patients (adjusted OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.28; p < 0.001). For all other postoperative events, minority patients had similar or lower rates compared with white patients.Conclusions: In contrast to prior research, we found that minority patients enrolled in a managed health-care system had rates of lifetime reoperation and 90-day postoperative events that were generally similar to or lower than those of white patients, findings that may be related to the equal access and/or standardized protocols associated with treatment in the managed care system. However, black and Hispanic patients still had higher rates of 90-day ED visits. Further research is required to determine the reasons for this finding and to identify interventions that could reduce unnecessary ED visits.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the editor discusses the journal's updated guidance on the publication of reports about race and ethnicity in the journal.

Background: The representation of women in orthopaedics in the United States remains among the lowest in all fields of medicine, and prior research has suggested that this underrepresentation may stem from lower levels of interest among female medical students. Of the many proposed reasons for this lack of interest, the male-dominated nature of the field is one of the most commonly cited. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the representation of women among orthopaedic faculty and residents influences female medical students at that institution to apply for a residency in orthopaedics.Methods: Using data provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges, we identified all U.S. medical schools that were affiliated with an orthopaedic surgery department and an orthopaedic surgery residency program (n = 107). For each institution, data on the representation of women among the orthopaedic faculty and residents from 2014 through 2016 were collected, as well as data on the proportion of female medical school graduates who applied to an orthopaedic residency program from 2015 through 2017. The association between institutional factors and the female medical student orthopaedic application rate was assessed.Results: Of 22,707 women who graduated from medical school during the 3-year study period, 449 (1.98%) applied to an orthopaedic surgery residency program. Women who attended medical school at institutions with high orthopaedic faculty sex diversity were more likely to apply for a residency in orthopaedics (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.64; p = 0.023), as were women who attended medical school at institutions with high orthopaedic resident sex diversity (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.61; p = 0.019).Conclusions: In this study, we found that increased sex diversity among orthopaedic faculty and residents was associated with a greater likelihood that female medical students at that institution would apply for an orthopaedic residency. These results suggest that at least some of the factors currently impeding female medical student interest in orthopaedics may be modifiable. These findings may have important implications for efforts to improve the sex diversity of the field of orthopaedics going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior studies have documented racial and ethnic disparities in hip fracture treatment and outcome, and unequal access is commonly cited as a potential mediator. We sought to assess whether disparities in hip fracture outcome persist within a universally insured population of patients enrolled in a managed health-care system.Methods: A U.S. integrated health systems registry was used to identify patients who underwent treatment for a hip fracture when they were ≥60 years of age from 2009 to 2014. Patient demographics, procedure details, and outcomes were obtained from the registry. Differences in outcome according to race/ethnicity were analyzed using multivariable regression analysis with adjustment for socioeconomic status and other potential confounders.Results: Of 17,790 patients, 79.4% were white, 3.9% were black, 9.4% were Hispanic, and 7.4% were Asian. Compared with white patients, black patients had a similar 1-year mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79 to 1.09, p = 0.37), Hispanic patients had a lower rate (OR = 0.85, 95% = CI = 0.75 to 0.96, p = 0.01), and Asian patients also had a lower rate (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.76, p < 0.001). There were no differences in terms of surgical delay, 90-day emergency department visits, or reoperations during the patient's lifetime (p > 0.05) between the groups. Compared with white patients, black and Hispanic patients had fewer 90-day postoperative complications (p = 0.04 and p = 0.01, respectively); 90-day unplanned readmissions were less common among Asian patients (p = 0.03) but more common among black patients (p = 0.01).Conclusions: In this study of hip fractures treated in an integrated managed care system, minority patients were found to have postoperative mortality rates that were similar to, or lower than, those of white patients. These findings may be related to the equal access and/or standardized protocols associated with treatment in this managed care system.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior studies have examined the relationship between surgeon and hospital volumes and outcome following hip fracture surgical procedures, but the results have been inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to assess the hip fracture volume-outcome relationship by analyzing data from a large, managed care registry.Methods: The Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry prospectively records information on surgically treated hip fractures within the managed health-care system. Using this registry, all surgically treated hip fractures in patients 60 years of age or older were identified. Surgeon and hospital volume were defined as the number of hip fracture surgical procedures performed in the preceding 12 months and were divided into tertiles (low, medium, and high). The primary outcome was mortality at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were mortality at 30 and 90 days postoperatively as well as reoperation (lifetime), medical complications (90-day), and unplanned readmission (30-day). To determine the relationship between volume and these outcome measures, multivariate logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed, controlling for potentially confounding variables.Results: Of 14,294 patients in the study sample, the majority were female (71%) and white (79%), and the mean age was 81 years. The overall mortality rate was 6% at 30 days, 11% at 90 days, and 21% at 1 year. We did not find an association between surgeon or hospital volume and mortality at 30 days, 90 days, or 1 year (p > 0.05). There was also no association between surgeon or hospital volume and reoperation, medical complications, or unplanned readmission (p > 0.05).Conclusions: In this analysis of hip fractures treated in a large integrated health-care system, the observed rates of mortality, reoperation, medical complications, and unplanned readmission did not differ by surgeon or hospital volume. In contrast to other orthopaedic procedures, such as total joint arthroplasty, our data do not suggest that hip fractures need to be preferentially directed toward high-volume surgeons or hospitals for treatment.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assesses hip fracture surgery volumes among older individuals in California during the pandemic compared with prepandemic rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Orthopaedic procedures are expensive, and devices account for a large proportion of the overall costs. Hospitals have employed a variety of strategies to decrease implant costs, but many center on restricting surgeon choice. At our institution, we developed an implant selection tool that guides surgeons toward more cost-effective implants, while minimally restricting choice. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of this tool on preferred implant usage rates, vendor attitudes toward pricing structure, and hospital implant expenditures.Methods: For 6 commonly used orthopaedic trauma devices, similar constructs were created for the 4 vendors used at our hospital, and the costs were determined. On the basis of these costs, the available options for each device type were categorized as "green" (preferred vendor), "yellow" (midrange), or "red" (used for patient-specific requirements). The "Red-Yellow-Green" chart was posted on the wall of each orthopaedic trauma operating room. To assess the effect of the tool, we compared implant usage patterns before and after implementation of the implant selection tool. We also assessed changes in vendor contract prices, as well as overall savings to our institution.Results: Implant usage changed significantly from 30% "red," 56% "yellow," and 14% "green" prior to the intervention, to 9% "red," 21% "yellow," and 70% "green" after the intervention (p < 0.0001). As a result of price renegotiation with vendors following implementation, we observed average price decreases that ranged from 1.1% to 22.4%. Average expenditures on these 6 implants decreased 20% during the study period, which represented a savings of $216,495 per year.Conclusions: At our institution, we designed and implemented "Red-Yellow-Green," a simple tool that guides surgeons toward the selection of lower-cost implants without violating vendor confidentiality clauses, limiting the implants from which surgeons can choose, or requiring surgeons to discern the prices of complex constructs. Following implementation, hospital implant expenditures decreased as a result of a combination of increased preferred vendor usage by surgeons, as well as increased competition among vendors, which resulted in lower overall prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which author discusses articles on topics including focuses on race and ethnicity that are social constructs without biologic meaning, they provide important context for understanding scientific research.

Case: A fifty-one-year-old female runner developed a stress fracture of the inferior pubic ramus. Nonoperative treatment was initiated, but the symptoms persisted and she was diagnosed with a nonunion. After eleven months of symptoms and ten months of nonoperative treatment, including four months of complete avoidance of running, percutaneous screw fixation was performed, with radiographic and clinical healing of the fracture. Conclusion: While inferior pubic ramus stress fractures are usually successfully treated nonoperatively, instances of nonunion and delayed union have been described. In the present report, we describe the case of a patient in whom an inferior pubic ramus stress fracture nonunion was successfully treated with minimally invasive screw fixation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the pricing revolution in Healthcare and the worldwide Orthopaedic Healthcare. It mentions the pricing matters in the U.S. healthcare were of primary importance to hospitals and insurance companies. It presents the promotion of high-deductible plans by the Consumer-Driven Health Care (CDHC) model which encourages patient to consider cost in selection of medical services.

Orthopedic procedures represent a large expense to the Medicare program, and costs of implantable medical devices account for a large proportion of those procedures' costs. Physicians have been encouraged to consider cost in the selection of devices, but several factors make acquiring cost information difficult. To assess physicians' levels of knowledge about costs, we asked orthopedic attending physicians and residents at seven academic medical centers to estimate the costs of thirteen commonly used orthopedic devices between December 2012 and March 2013. The actual cost of each device was determined at each institution; estimates within 20 percent of the actual cost were considered correct. Among the 503 physicians who completed our survey, attending physicians correctly estimated the cost of the device 21 percent of the time, and residents did so 17 percent of the time. Thirty-six percent of physicians and 75 percent of residents rated their knowledge of device costs "below average" or "poor." However, more than 80 percent of all respondents indicated that cost should be "moderately," "very," or "extremely" important in the device selection process. Surgeons need increased access to information on the relative prices of devices and should be incentivized to participate in cost containment efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the authors discusses the methods in treating hip fractures, particularly the exclusion of the surgical approach as a factor in determining whether to use cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty as treatment. Also cited are the limited use of the surgical method in hemiarthroplasty treatment of femoral neck fractures, and the adverse effects of direct anterior approach in elective total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.

Abstract: Background: In the management of displaced proximal humerus fractures in the elderly, wide variation has been documented. However, no prior study has investigated the factors that currently lead surgeons to treat patients with surgical fixation, arthroplasty or non-operative management. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with treatment selection in the management of displaced proximal humerus fractures in individuals over the age of 60 years. To this end, we conducted a retrospective review of all such injuries that presented to our two level-I trauma centres between 2006 and 2009. Patients and methods: From our prospectively collected trauma database, we identified 229 displaced proximal humerus fractures that met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were collected on patient-, fracture- and surgeon-related characteristics that were plausibly related to the decision for treatment. The choice of management was recorded, and logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the decision for treatment. Results: In the multivariate analysis, the predictors of operative intervention as opposed to non-operative treatment were younger patient age (p =0.038), associated orthopaedic injuries requiring surgery (p =0.012), higher Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification (p =0.012), translation-type displacement (p =0.0012) and associated glenohumeral dislocation (p =0.0006). In addition, shoulder and upper extremity specialists were found to choose operative intervention significantly more frequently than orthopaedic trauma specialists (49.1% vs. 26.1%, adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.96, p =0.012). Factors associated with the decision for arthroplasty as opposed to fixation were higher Charlson score (p =0.045), higher Neer classification (p =0.012), and higher AO classification (p =0.0097). Conclusions: In this study of displaced proximal humerus fractures in the elderly, the decision for surgery was influenced by the patient''s age, the presence of associated orthopaedic injuries, the severity of the fracture and the presence of an associated glenohumeral dislocation. In addition, treatment by a shoulder or upper extremity specialist (as opposed to an orthopaedic trauma specialist) was associated with a higher likelihood of operative intervention. Further investigation into the resultant clinical outcomes is required to determine whether the use of these characteristics to select operative candidates is appropriate and beneficial for patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The Surgical Implant Generation Network (SIGN) intramedullary nailing system was designed to treat femoral fractures in developing countries where real-time imaging, power equipment, and fracture tables are often not available. We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on femoral shaft fractures treated with the SIGN intramedullary nailing system. Methods: Seventy consecutive patients with a closed diaphyseal femoral fracture were treated with the SIGN intra-medullary nail at Mulago National Hospital in Uganda between February 2007 and March 2008, and fifty of these patients (the study cohort) were followed for at least six months or until fracture-healing. Results: The mean time to surgery was 13.2 days (range, zero to thirty-three days). All fractures healed, although two required dynamization for treatment of delayed union. No hardware failures occurred. An interlocking screw missed the nail in two patients, but both fractures healed without complications. One superficial and one deep infection developed; the latter required nail removal after fracture union. Including these patients, complications requiring further treatment occurred in 14% (seven) of the fifty patients. Conclusions: The SIGN intramedullary nailing system promotes predictable healing of femoral fractures in settings with limited resources including lack of real-time imaging, lack of power reaming, and delayed presentation to the operating room. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the U.S. population is increasingly diverse, the field of orthopaedic surgery has historically been less diverse. The purpose of this study was to quantify the representation of racial and ethnic minorities among orthopaedic surgery residents compared with those in other fields of medicine and to determine how these levels of diversity have changed over time. Methods: We determined the representation of minorities among residents in orthopaedic surgery and in other fields by analyzing the Graduate Medical Education reports published annually by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which provided data for African-Americans from 1968 to 2008, Hispanics from 1990 to 2008, Asians from 1995 to 2008, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders from 2001 to 2008. Results: During the 1990s and 2000s, representation among orthopaedic residents increased rapidly for Asians (14.53% per decade, p < 0.0001) and gradually for Hispanics (11.37% per decade, p < 0.0001) and African-Americans (10.68% per decade, p = 0.0003). Total minority representation in orthopaedics averaged 20.2% during the most recent years studied (2001 to 2008), including 11.7% for Asians, 4.0% for African-Americans, 3.8% for Hispanics, 0.4% for American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and 0.3% for Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. However, orthopaedic surgery was significantly less diverse than all of the other residencies examined during this time period (p < 0.001). This was due primarily to the lower representation of Hispanics and Asians in orthopaedic surgery than in any of the other fields of medicine. Conclusions: Minority representation in orthopaedic residency programs has increased over time for Asians, Hispanics, and African-Americans. In spite of these gains, orthopaedic surgery has remained the least diverse of the specialty training programs considered in this study. While further efforts are needed to determine the factors underlying this lack of representation, we suggest a series of interventions that can be expected to enhance diversity in orthopaedic residencies as well as in the profession as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To identify the scientific and nonscientific factors associated with rates of citation in the orthopedic literature. Study Design and Setting: All original clinical articles published in three general orthopedics journals between July 2002 and December 2003 were reviewed. Information was collected on variables plausibly related to rates of citation, including scientific and nonscientific factors. The number of citations at 5 years was ascertained and linear regression was used to identify factors associated with rates of citation. Results: In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased rates of citation at 5 years were high level of evidence (22.2 citations for level I or II vs. 10.8 citations for level III or IV; P =0.0001), large sample size (18.8 citations for sample size of 100 or more vs. 7.9 citations for sample size of 25 or fewer; P <0.0001), multiple institutions (15.2 citations for two or more centers vs. 11.1 citations for single center; P =0.023), self-reported conflict of interest disclosure involving a nonprofit organization (17.4 citations for nonprofit disclosure vs. 10.6 citations for no disclosure; P =0.027), and self-reported conflict of interest disclosure involving a for-profit company (26.1 citations for for-profit disclosure vs. 10.6 citations for no disclosure; P =0.011). Conclusion: High level of evidence, large sample size, representation from multiple institutions, and conflict of interest disclosure are associated with higher rates of citation in orthopedics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recent public reporting of payments made to physicians by manufacturers of orthopedic devices provides an opportunity to assess the accuracy of physicians' conflict-of-interest disclosures. Methods: We analyzed the reports of payments made to physicians by five manufacturers of total hip and knee prostheses in 2007. For each payment recipient who was an author of a presentation or served as a committee member or board member at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the disclosure statement was reviewed to determine whether the payment had been disclosed. To ascertain the reasons for nondisclosure, a survey was administered to physicians who had received payments that were not disclosed. Results: The overall rate of disclosure was 71.2% (245 of 344 payments). For payments that were directly related to the topic of the presentation at the meeting, the rate was 79.3% (165 of 208); for payments that were indirectly related, the rate was 50.0% (16 of 32); and for payments that were unrelated, the rate was 49.2% (29 of 59) (P=0.008). In the multivariate analysis, payments were also more likely to have been disclosed if they exceeded $10,000 (P<0.001), were directed toward an individual physician rather than a company or organization (P=0.04), or included an in-kind component (P=0.002). Among the 36 physicians who responded to the survey regarding reasons for nondisclosure (response rate, 39.6%), the reasons most commonly given for nondisclosure were that the payment was unrelated to the topic of presentation at the annual meeting (38.9% of respondents) and that the physician had misunderstood the disclosure requirements (13.9%); 11.1% reported that the payment had been disclosed but was mistakenly omitted from the program. Conclusions: In this study of self-reported conflict-of-interest disclosure by physicians at a large annual meeting, the rate of disclosure was 79.3% for directly related payments and 50.0% for indirectly related payments. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1466-74. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While it is widely accepted that scientific factors may render a study more likely to be accepted for publication, it is less clear whether nonscientific factors may also be associated with publication. The purpose of this study was to identify the nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). Methods: A total of 1173 manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, for publication as scientific articles were analyzed as part of a study on publication bias in the editorial decision-making process. Information was collected on nonscientific factors plausibly associated with acceptance for publication, including study location, conflict-of-interest disclosure, sex of the author, primary language, and the number of prior publications by the corresponding author in frequently cited orthopaedic journals. The final disposition term (acceptance or rejection) was recorded, and logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with acceptance for publication. Results: Manuscripts from countries other than the United States or Canada were significantly less likely to be accepted (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.92; p = 0.026). Factors positively associated with acceptance for publication were conflict-of-interest disclosure involving a nonprofit entity (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 2.73; p < 0.001) and ten or more prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals by the corresponding author (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.33 to 3.05; p = 0.001). We did not find a significant association between acceptance and conflict-of-interest disclosure involving a for-profit company, sex of the corresponding author, or primary language. Conclusions: Manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery were more likely to be accepted if they were from the United States or Canada, reported a conflict of interest related to a nonprofit entity, or were authored by an individual with ten or more prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Financial conflicts of interest are exceedingly common in biomedical research. Investigators with conflicts of interest are more likely to arrive at positive conclusions, perhaps as a result of biased study design, industry suppression of negative results, preferential funding by industry of projects that are likely to succeed, or biased interpretation of results on the part of investigators. Government and professional organisations have proposed guidelines for managing conflicts of interest, but in practice it is the policies of universities and medical journals that direct the actions of investigators. Academic researchers and the media have expressed concern about the influence of industry sponsorship on biomedical research, while industry is increasingly turning to private entities (such as contract research organisations) to conduct clinical trials. Research participants appear less concerned with conflicts of interest in biomedical research, perhaps due to a faith that such conflicts are being appropriately managed by institutions. After reviewing the literature, we provide recommendations for the ethical conduct of biomedical research in the presence of financial conflicts of interest. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Positive outcomes are common in the orthopaedic literature, and there are many who believe it may be due to the preferential publication of studies with positive findings—a phenomenon known as publication bias. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether positive findings rendered a manuscript submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) more likely to be accepted for publication. Methods: A total of 1181 manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, for publication as scientific articles were analyzed, with 855 meeting the inclusion criteria. The direction of the study findings (positive, neutral, or negative) was independently graded by three blinded reviewers. The final disposition (acceptance or rejection) was recorded, as was information on the scientific characteristics plausibly related to acceptance or rejection. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with acceptance for publication. Results: The overall acceptance rate was 21.8% (186 of 855 studies). The study outcome was positive for 72.5% (620) of the manuscripts. The acceptance rate for the 235 manuscripts with nonpositive findings was 23.0% (fifty-four studies) compared with 21.3% (132) of the 620 studies with positive findings (crude odds ratio, 1.10 [95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.58]; p = 0.593). After controlling for all covariates, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 1.35; p = 0.652). In the multivariate analysis, the only factor significantly associated with acceptance for publication was level of evidence (p = 0.001). Conclusions: We found no evidence of publication bias in the review of manuscripts for publication by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, as positive and nonpositive studies were accepted at similar rates. The dearth of nonpositive studies in the orthopaedic literature is of concern, and may be due largely to investigator-based factors. Orthopaedic researchers should submit negative and neutral studies for publication, confident that the likelihood of acceptance will not be influenced by the direction of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores various issues concerning conflicts of interest in orthopaedics research. Financial conflict issues may occur when an investigator conducts research that is beneficial for a company in which the researcher has ownership interest. According to the findings of a study, corporate funding in orthopedic research is more likely to restrict investigators behavior and less likely to result in negative findings.

Background: Financial conflict of interest has been associated with an increased likelihood that authors will report positive study outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between types of declared conflict of interest and reported study outcomes in orthopaedic research. Methods: The abstracts of all podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons were analyzed by three orthopaedic surgeons with advanced training in clinical epidemiology. The findings reported in each abstract were graded as positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable. Self- reported conflict of interest was recorded and classified. Results: Conflicts of interest were reported in 40.8% (212) of 519 abstracts. The interobserver reliability of the grading of the study findings was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.725). Rates of conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consultant or employee status varied significantly by subspecialty field (p < 0.001). The overall rate of positive study findings was 84.0% (436 of the 519 abstracts). Positive findings were more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties (98.4% [sixty of sixty-one] compared with 88.0% [381 of 433] for studies authored by individuals without a conflict of interest related to royalties; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.1]; p = 0.02), in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to stock options (100.0% [twenty-nine of twenty-nine] compared with 84.7% [394 of 465]; relative risk = 1.2 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.04), and in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to consultant or employee status (97.8% [ninety-one of ninety-three] compared with 89.0% [357 of 401]; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.2]; p = 0.01). Positive findings were not more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to research or institutional funding (93.5% [143 of 153] compared with 91.8% [313 of 341]; relative risk = 1.0 [95% confidence interval = 0.95 to 1.5]; p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, the factors that remained significant predictors of positive outcomes were royalties (p = 0.002) and consultant or employee status (p = 0.038). Conclusions: Self-reported conflicts of interest are common in orthopaedic research, particularly in the subspecialty fields of adult reconstruction of the knee, adult reconstruction of the hip, and spine. Presentations authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consulting or employee status were significantly more likely to describe positive findings. While there may be distinct benefits associated with industry support of orthopaedic research, safeguards must be established to maintain public trust in the medical research establishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the authors' suggestions on treating open fractures. Antibiotics should be administered to a patient with an open fracture to reduce the risk of infection. It is essential to rush the patient to an operating room on an urgent basis. Early closure of adequately debrided wounds can facilitate recovery. The author also suggests adjunctive therapies such as the early application of bone grafts to improve healing of open fractures.

The article presents the author's view on computer-assisted virtual surgical technology versus three-dimensional printing technology in preoperative planning for displaced three and four-part fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. It mentions preoperative planning is crucial in orthopaedic surgery, and fixation of proximal humeral fractures.

Background: In the current era of evidence-based medicine, scientific publications play a crucial role in guiding patient care. While the lack of diversity among orthopaedic surgeons has been well documented, little is known about the diversity of orthopaedic journal editorial boards. The purpose of this study was to assess the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of U.S. orthopaedic journal editorial boards. Methods: The editorial boards of 13 orthopaedic journals were examined, including 10 subspecialty and 3 general orthopaedic journals. Race/ethnicity and gender were determined for each editorial board member. The representation observed on orthopaedic journal editorial boards was compared with representation at other phases of the orthopaedic pipeline, as well as within the various subspecialty fields of orthopaedics. Logistic regression and t tests were used to evaluate these comparisons. Results: We identified 876 editorial board members of the 13 journals; 14.0% were Asian, 1.9% were Black, 1.9% were Hispanic, 2.4% were multiracial/other, and 79.7% were White. Racial/ethnic representation was similar across the subspecialty fields of orthopaedics (p > 0.05). The representation of women on orthopaedic editorial boards was 7.9%, with differences in gender diversity observed across subspecialty fields (p < 0.05). Among journals in the subspecialty fields of spine and trauma, female editorial board representation was lower than expected, even after taking into account the representation of women in these subspecialty fields (2.0% versus 9.0% [p = 0.002] and 3.8% versus 10.0% [p = 0.03], respectively). Conclusions: In this study of 13 subspecialty and general orthopaedic journals, the representation of racial/ethnic minorities and women on editorial boards was similar to their representation in academic orthopaedics. However, these values remain low in comparison with the population of patients treated by orthopaedic surgeons. Given the importance of scientific publications in the current era of evidence-based medicine, orthopaedic journals should continue working to diversify the membership of their editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study on setting of author prestige by comparing a single-blind peer review with a double-blind one. Topics include conducing the study as to the orthopedic journal "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research" (CORR) with the approval of the institutional review board of the University of Washington. Results indicated grades of acceptance or rejection taken at face value, grades of minor or major revisions analyzed and quality scores compared with ad hoc scores.

Background: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database is accessible, inexpensive, and increasingly used in orthopaedic research, but it has complex design features that require nuanced methodological considerations for appropriate use and interpretation. A recent study showed poor adherence to recommended research practices for the NIS across a broad spectrum of medical and surgical fields, but the degree and patterns of nonadherence among orthopaedic publications remain unclear.Questions/purposes: In this study, we sought: (1) to quantify nonadherence to recommended research practices provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for using the NIS data in orthopaedic studies from 2016-2017; and, (2) to identify the most common nonadherence practices.Methods: We evaluated all 136 manuscripts published across the 74 orthopaedic journals listed on Scimago Journal & Country Rank that used the NIS from January 2016 through December 2017. Of those studies, 2% (3 of 136) were excluded because NIS was not used for analysis. The studies were evaluated for adherence to seven recommended research practices by the AHRQ: (1) identifying observations as hospitalization events rather than unique patients; (2) not performing state-level analyses; (3) limiting hospital-level analyses to data from year 1988-2011; (4) not performing physician-level analyses; (5) avoiding the use of nonspecific secondary diagnosis codes to infer in-hospital events; (6) using survey-specific analysis methods that account for clustering, stratification, and weighting; and (7) accounting for data changes in trend analyses spanning major transition periods in the data set (1997-1998 and 2011-2012).Results: Overall, 93% (124 of 133) of the studies did not adhere to one or more practices. For each of the research practices assessed, 80% (106 of 133) of the studies did not account for the clustering and stratification in survey design; 56% (75 of 133) implied records were unique patients rather than hospitalization events; 41% (54 of 133) inappropriately used secondary diagnosis codes to infer in-hospital events.Conclusions: Nearly all manuscripts published in orthopaedic journals using the NIS database in 2016 and 2017 failed to adhere to recommended research practices. Future research quantifying variations in study results on the basis of adherence to recommended research practices would be of value.Clinical Relevance: With the ubiquitous presence of large-database studies in orthopaedic journals, our work points to the importance of rigorous methodological appraisal when evaluating results, and encourages journals to require the use of the methodology checklists upon submission of such studies. More research is needed to determine whether deviations from recommended research practices actually lead to biased conclusions that affect patient care and policy-related decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Prior studies regarding indications for long vs short cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures had limited sample sizes and follow-up, suggesting a need for further investigation. Objective: To evaluate the association between cephalomedullary nail length and outcomes for the treatment of intertrochanteric femur fractures. Design: Cohort study using Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 5526 patients who underwent surgical treatment with cephalomedullary nails for an intertrochanteric femur fracture (2009-2014) were identified: 3108 (56.2%) with long nails and 2418 (43.8%) with short nails. Cox proportional hazards model regression was used to evaluate risks of all-cause revision and revision for periprosthetic fracture. Linear regression was used to evaluate operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay. Propensity score weights were used in all models to balance nail groups on patient and device characteristics. Main Outcome Measures: All-cause revision surgery. Results: No association was found in risk of all-cause revision (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-1.15) or revision for periprosthetic fracture (hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.23-1.48) for long nails compared with short nails. Use of longer nails resulted in 18.80 more minutes of operative time (95% CI = 17.33-20.27 minutes), 41.10 mL more of estimated blood loss (95% CI = 31.71-50.48 mL), and a longer hospitalization (8.4 hours; ß = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12-0.58 hours). Conclusion: These findings suggest that routine use of short cephalomedullary nails is safe and effective in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Of the many manuscripts that are submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) (JBJS-A) for publication, the majority are not accepted. However, little is known about the outcome of these rejected submissions. To determine the fate of studies rejected by JBJS-A, we conducted a foilow-up investigation of all clinical and basic science manuscripts that were submitted to The Journal between January 2004 and June 2005 but were not accepted Methods: For each rejected manuscript, data were extracted on a wide variety of scientific and nonscientific characteristics, which were plausibly related to subsequent publication. PubMed searches were conducted to determine which manuscripts achieved full publication within five years, and logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with publication. To further elucidate the factors associated with publication, a survey was administered to the corresponding author of each rejected manuscript Results: At five years following rejection by JBJS-A, 75.8% (696 of 918) of manuscripts had reached full publication. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with a higher likelihood of subsequent publication included grade of initial review by JBJS-A (p = 0.029), disclosure of a for-profit or nonprofit conflict of interest (p = 0.028 and 0.027, respectively), and a greater number of prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals by the corresponding author (p < 0.0001). Manuscripts were less likely to reach full publication if the corresponding author was from Asia or the Middle East (p = 0.004) or was a woman (p = 0.003). Among survey respondents who indicated that their study had not yet reached full publication, the most commonly cited reason was lack of time (reported by 51.4% of respondents [thirty-eight of seventy-four]). Conclusions: Most manuscripts (75.8%) not accepted by JBJS-A were published elsewhere within five years of rejection. The factors predictive of subsequent publication were primarily investigator-related as opposed to study-related. Given this low threshold for eventual publication, readers are encouraged to use criteria other than inclusion in the PubMed database to identify high-quality papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Kanu Okike and Mininder S. Kocher to a letter to the editor about their article "Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Reported by Physicians" in the October 8, 2009 issue is presented.

Background: Prior reports of the DePuy Synthes Trochanteric Fixation Nail Advanced (TFNA) revealed a potential mode of fatigue failure at the proximal screw aperture following fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. We sought to compare the revision risk between the TFNA and its prior-generation forebear, the Trochanteric Fixation Nail (TFN).Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a U.S. integrated health-care system's hip fracture registry. The study sample comprised patients who underwent cephalomedullary nail fixation for hip fracture with a TFN (n = 4,007) or TFNA (n = 3,972) from 2014 to 2019. We evaluated the charts and radiographs for patients who underwent any revision. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the risk of revision related to the index fracture.Results: At the 3-year follow-up, the cumulative probability of revision related to the index fracture was 1.8% for the TFN and 1.9% for the TFNA. After adjustment for covariates, no difference was observed in revision risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80 to 1.75]; p = 0.40) for the TFNA compared with the TFN. The TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion than the TFN (HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.12]; p = 0.018). At the 3-year follow-up, implant breakage was 0.06% for the TFN and 0.2% for the TFNA; with regard to aperture failures related to the index fracture, there were 1 failure for the TFN group and 3 failures for the TFNA group.Conclusions: In a large cohort from a U.S. hip fracture registry, the TFNA had an overall revision rate that was similar to that of the earlier TFN, with implant breakage being a rare revision reason for both groups. Chart and radiographic review found that the TFNA was associated with a higher risk of revision for nonunion.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internal fixation is currently the standard of care for Garden-I and II femoral neck fractures in elderly patients. However, there may be a degree of posterior tilt (measured on preoperative lateral radiograph) above which failure is likely, and primary arthroplasty would be preferred. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between posterior tilt and the risk of subsequent arthroplasty following internal fixation of Garden-I and II femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.Methods: This study is a preplanned secondary analysis of data collected in the FAITH (Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures) trial, an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the sliding hip screw with cannulated screws in the treatment of femoral neck fractures in patients ≥50 years old. For each patient who sustained a Garden-I or II femoral neck fracture and had an adequate preoperative lateral radiograph, the amount of posterior tilt was categorized as <20° or ≥20°. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to assess the association between posterior tilt and subsequent arthroplasty during the 2-year follow-up period, controlling for potential confounders.Results: Of the 555 patients in the study sample, 67 (12.1%) had posterior tilt ≥20° and 488 (87.9%) had posterior tilt <20°. Overall, 73 (13.2%) of 555 patients underwent subsequent arthroplasty in the 24-month follow-up period. In the multivariable analysis, patients with posterior tilt ≥20° had a significantly higher risk of subsequent arthroplasty compared with those with posterior tilt <20° (22.4% [15 of 67] compared with 11.9% [58 of 488]; hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.24 to 4.00; p = 0.008). The other factor associated with subsequent arthroplasty was age ≥80 years (p = 0.03).Conclusions: In this analysis of patients with Garden-I and II femoral neck fractures, posterior tilt ≥20° was associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent arthroplasty. Primary arthroplasty may be considered for Garden-I and II femoral neck fractures with posterior tilt ≥20°, especially among older patients.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The practice of medicine is based on evidence from peer-reviewed literature. As can occur with author-related funding, the integrity of the process by which manuscripts are reviewed, edited, and approved for publication may be at risk due to financial conflict of interest. The purpose of our study was to assess potential financial conflict of interest among physician editorial board members of orthopaedic surgery journals.Methods: We identified the physician editorial board members of 15 orthopaedic surgery journals and searched the 2014 payments that were archived in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments system (mandated by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act). Total dollar values were calculated and tabulated in a multilevel fashion: nothing reported, >$0 and ≤$10,000, >$10,000, >$250,000, and >$950,000.Results: We identified 908 physician editors of 15 orthopaedic surgery journals. Something of financial value was received by 78% (712 of 908) of these individuals. Rates of editorial board potential financial conflict of interest for individual journals ranged from 4% to 73% in the >$10,000 category. At the >$250,000 mark, rates ranged from 0% (2 journals) to 31%. When applying the >$950,000 criterion, physician potential conflict of interest ranged from 0% (5 journals) to 13%.Conclusions: Editor-related potential financial conflicts of interest exist in the orthopaedic surgery journals that we analyzed. These potential financial conflicts could possibly impact reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Financial conflict of interest has been associated with an increased likelihood that authors will report positive study outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between types of declared conflict of interest and reported study outcomes in orthopaedic research.Methods: The abstracts of all podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons were analyzed by three orthopaedic surgeons with advanced training in clinical epidemiology. The findings reported in each abstract were graded as positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable. Self-reported conflict of interest was recorded and classified.Results: Conflicts of interest were reported in 40.8% (212) of 519 abstracts. The interobserver reliability of the grading of the study findings was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.725). Rates of conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consultant or employee status varied significantly by subspecialty field (p < 0.001). The overall rate of positive study findings was 84.0% (436 of the 519 abstracts). Positive findings were more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties (98.4% [sixty of sixty-one] compared with 88.0% [381 of 433] for studies authored by individuals without a conflict of interest related to royalties; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.1]; p = 0.02), in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to stock options (100.0% [twenty-nine of twenty-nine] compared with 84.7% [394 of 465]; relative risk = 1.2 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.04), and in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to consultant or employee status (97.8% [ninety-one of ninety-three] compared with 89.0% [357 of 401]; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.2]; p = 0.01). Positive findings were not more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to research or institutional funding (93.5% [143 of 153] compared with 91.8% [313 of 341]; relative risk = 1.0 [95% confidence interval = 0.95 to 1.5]; p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, the factors that remained significant predictors of positive outcomes were royalties (p = 0.002) and consultant or employee status (p = 0.038).Conclusions: Self-reported conflicts of interest are common in orthopaedic research, particularly in the subspecialty fields of adult reconstruction of the knee, adult reconstruction of the hip, and spine. Presentations authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consulting or employee status were significantly more likely to describe positive findings. While there may be distinct benefits associated with industry support of orthopaedic research, safeguards must be established to maintain public trust in the medical research establishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Of the many manuscripts that are submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) (JBJS-A) for publication, the majority are not accepted. However, little is known about the outcome of these rejected submissions. To determine the fate of studies rejected by JBJS-A, we conducted a follow-up investigation of all clinical and basic science manuscripts that were submitted to The Journal between January 2004 and June 2005 but were not accepted.Methods: For each rejected manuscript, data were extracted on a wide variety of scientific and nonscientific characteristics, which were plausibly related to subsequent publication. PubMed searches were conducted to determine which manuscripts achieved full publication within five years, and logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with publication. To further elucidate the factors associated with publication, a survey was administered to the corresponding author of each rejected manuscript.Results: At five years following rejection by JBJS-A, 75.8% (696 of 918) of manuscripts had reached full publication. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with a higher likelihood of subsequent publication included grade of initial review by JBJS-A (p = 0.029), disclosure of a for-profit or nonprofit conflict of interest (p = 0.028 and 0.027, respectively), and a greater number of prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals by the corresponding author (p < 0.0001). Manuscripts were less likely to reach full publication if the corresponding author was from Asia or the Middle East (p = 0.004) or was a woman (p = 0.003). Among survey respondents who indicated that their study had not yet reached full publication, the most commonly cited reason was lack of time (reported by 51.4% of respondents [thirty-eight of seventy-four]).Conclusions: Most manuscripts (75.8%) not accepted by JBJS-A were published elsewhere within five years of rejection. The factors predictive of subsequent publication were primarily investigator-related as opposed to study-related. Given this low threshold for eventual publication, readers are encouraged to use criteria other than inclusion in the PubMed database to identify high-quality papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]