Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Physician disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is currently controversial. To address this issue, orthopaedic societies have implemented a variety of guidelines related to potential conflict-of-interest disclosure. Transparency is crucial to address the concerns about potential conflict-of-interest disclosure. Nonetheless, prior studies have noted substantial discrepancies in disclosures to societies for individual authors who present their research work at multiple conferences. Our goal was to evaluate the ability of orthopaedic surgeons to interpret disclosure policy statements regarding project-specific or global disclosure instructions. METHODS: The disclosure policy statements of the ten conferences most frequently attended by this group were collected, and selected statements were compiled into a questionnaire survey that was administered to orthopaedic faculty and trainees at our institution. Subjects were asked to read each statement and identify whether they interpreted the policy to be requesting project-specific disclosures (potential conflict of interest related to the research work in the abstract being submitted) or global disclosure (inclusive of all potential conflicts of interest, including those not associated with the abstract being submitted). The correct responses were identified by communicating with the individual societies and determining the responses desired by the society. RESULTS: The study had a 100% return rate from seventeen orthopaedic faculty, twenty-five orthopaedic residents and fellows, and twenty-five medical students. The average number of incorrect responses to the ten questions was 2.8. Forty-six percent of respondents had three or more incorrect responses, 24% had two incorrect responses, 19% had one incorrect response, and 10% had no incorrect responses. There was no significant difference in responses between those of different training levels. Subjects were no more likely to answer a project-specific question incorrectly than they were to answer a global question incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: This study clearly demonstrated a discrepancy between what societies intend to identify with disclosure policies and what the orthopaedist interprets is intended. Almost half of those completing the survey did not correctly understand the intention of three or more of the policies, even with expected study intent bias. This study showed that the language used in disclosure policy statements and the lack of a uniform policy may be a cause of substantial discrepancies in potential conflict-of-interest disclosure.

STUDY DESIGN: Laboratory biomechanical experiment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how different anterior cervical collar heights restrict full, active range of motion (ROM), and functional ROM during 15 activities of daily living. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Hard cervical collars are commonly used in the clinical setting. Collar fit is presumed to affect immobilization, making neck height an important variable. No prior study has evaluated how different collar heights affect full, active and functional ROM. METHODS: A previously validated electrogoniometer device was employed to quantify both full, active, and functional ROM. For each of 10 subjects, these ROM measurements were repeated without a collar and with an adjustable, hard collar (Aspen Vista) at each of 6 collar neck height settings. RESULTS: For each increase in collar height, there was a corresponding decrease in mean full, active ROM of 3.7% (3 degrees ) in the sagittal plane (R2 = 0.91, P = 0.003), 3.9% (3 degrees ) in the coronal plane (R2 = 0.88, P = 0.005), and 2.8% (4 degrees ) in the rotational plane (R2 = 0.86, P = 0.006). For each increase in collar height, there was a corresponding decrease in mean functional ROM across all of the tested activities of daily living of 1.1% (1 degrees ) in the sagittal plane (R2 = 0.90, P = 0.004), 0.4% (0.4 degrees ) in the coronal plane (R2 = 0.86, P = 0.007), and 0.6% (0.5 degrees ) in the rotational plane (R2 = 0.81, P = 0.014). For each increase in collar height, there was a 1.7 degrees increase in mean neck extension while in the neutral position (R2 = 0.99, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that greater cervical collar height for hard cervical collars will better restrict full, active, and functional cervical ROM. However, the change in functional ROM was only about one quarter to that of full active ROM and the clinical significance of this may be questioned. This must be balanced by the fact that this increased collar height forces the neck into greater extension which may not be the most clinical desired or functional position and may cause skin-related issues at the jaw or chest.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative efficacies of soft and rigid collars for restricting both the full, active and functional ranges of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine during 15 activities of daily living (ADLs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical collars are frequently used for the purpose of limiting cervical motion after surgical procedures or as a treatment for certain injuries. Rigid collars are generally believed to reduce cervical motion to a greater extent than soft collars but the latter are often preferred by patients because of their greater comfort. Although there are some data to suggest that soft collars restrict full, active ROM (i.e., the extremes of motion) to a lesser degree than rigid braces, there are currently no comparative studies that have assessed the effects of these 2 types of cervical collars on the functional ROM that is required to perform multiple ADLs. METHODS: In this investigation, a previously validated electrogoniometer device was used to quantify both the full, active ROM of 10 subjects as well as the functional ROM they exhibited during a series of 15 ADLs. For each individual, these ROM measurements were repeated after the application of both a soft collar and a rigid orthosis. RESULTS: The soft collar limited flexion/extension, lateral bending, and rotation by 27.1%+/-9.9% (mean+/-standard deviation), 26.1%+/-4.8%, and 29.3%+/-10.3%, respectively. The corresponding reductions in ROM with a rigid collar were 53.7%+/-7.2%, 34.9%+/-6%, and 59.2%+/-5.3%, respectively. The rigid collar resulted in significantly lower full, active ROM in both the sagittal and axial planes but not in the lateral bending plane. Compared with the soft collar, the rigid collar afforded no difference in motion during 13 of the 15 simulated ADLs. Greater motion was only noted with backing up a car and sitting from a standing position. CONCLUSION: Although subjects exhibited less full, active ROM of the cervical spine when immobilized in a rigid collar than when they were placed in a soft collar, the motion recorded during various functional tasks was not significantly different for nearly all of the ADLs in this study, regardless of which cervical device was applied. One potential explanation for this finding is that both collars may serve as proprioceptive guides, which allow patients to regulate their own cervical motion based on their level of comfort. Given the paucity of data supporting the use of postoperative bracing, especially after procedures which incorporate internal fixation, this study indicates that a rigid orthosis may be unnecessary in many cases because even a soft collar seems to be sufficient for restricting motion during routine activities until the normal, physiologic ROM of the cervical spine has been restored.

Lumbar disc herniations are common clinical entities that may cause lumbar-related symptoms. The spectrum of treatment options is geared toward a patient's clinical presentation and ranges from nothing to surgical intervention. Many lumbar disc herniations cause no significant symptoms. In studies of asymptomatic individuals who have never experienced lumbar-related symptoms, 30% have been reported to have major abnormality on magnetic resonance imaging. The mainstay of treatment of patients with symptomatic disc herniations is accepted to be nonoperative (as long as there are no acute or progressive neurologic deficits); this includes medications, physical therapy, and potentially lumbar injection. For patients with symptomatic disc herniations who fail to respond appropriately to conservative measures, surgical intervention may be considered. For this population, lumbar discectomy is considered to be a good option.