Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:It is important to understand the current characteristics of orthopaedic surgery program leadership, especially in the current climate of modern medicine. The purpose of this report was to describe the demographic, academic, and geographic characteristics of current orthopaedic chairs and program directors (PDs). METHODS:Orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and cross-referenced with the Electronic Residency Application Service, identifying 161 residency programs for the 2018 to 2019 cycle. All data were collected in January 2020 to best control for changes in leadership. Demographic and academic information were collected from public websites. For geographic analysis, the United States was divided into five regions, and training locations were categorized as appropriate. RESULTS:A total of 153 chairs and 161 PDs were identified. 98.0% of chairs were men versus 88.8% of PDs (P = 0.001). Chairs had been in practice and in their current position for longer than PDs (26.4 vs 16.8 years [P < 0.005] and 9.1 vs 7.1 years [P = 0.014], respectively). Chairs had more publications and were more likely to be professors than PDs. PDs were more likely to remain at both the same region and institution that they trained in residency. The most common subspecialty was sports among chairs and trauma among PDs, although when compared with national averages orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology were the most overrepresented subspecialties. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Orthopaedic chairs are more likely to be men, have had longer careers, and have more academic accomplishments than their PD counterparts. Geography appears to have an association with where our leaders end up, especially for PDs. Subspecialization does not notably influence leadership positions, although orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology surgeons are more commonly represented than expected. This report serves to identify the current state of orthopaedic leadership and may provide guidance for those who seek these leadership positions.

Background: Glenoid wear is a common challenge in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Augmented baseplates have recently been designed to address this. The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical outcomes, complications, and revision rates of patients undergoing rTSA with an augmented baseplate compared to those that received a standard, non-augmented baseplate. Methods: Preoperative and postoperative data were analyzed for 414 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent primary rTSA with either an 8° posterior augmented glenoid baseplate, a 10° superior augmented baseplate (SAB), or an 8° posterior/10° superior augmented baseplate (P/SAB). These patients were compared to 1547 primary rTSA patients who received a standard baseplate. Clinical outcomes were scored using the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), UCLA, ASES, Constant and SPADI clinical outcome scoring metrics. Range of motion for active abduction, forward flexion, internal rotation and external rotation were used to quantify function. Complication and revision rates were also documented, and postoperative radiographs were analyzed for scapular notching. A two-tailed, unpaired t-test was used to identify differences between continuous parameters and a Chi Square test was used for categorical parameters, with P < .05 denoting a significant difference. Results: At an average follow-up of 47.1 ± 23.1 months, the augmented baseplates performed as well, or better, than standard baseplates, with a similar complication rate, revision rate, aseptic glenoid loosening rate, and scapular notching rate. Discussion: Augmented baseplates are a safe and effective option for patients with glenoid bone loss in the setting of rTSA at mid-term follow-up. For each baseplate type, the outcomes were similar, and the complication/revision and scapular notching rates were low and comparable to that of the standard baseplate cohort. Level of evidence: Level III

Background: An important psychometric parameter of validity that is rarely assessed is predictive value. In this study we utilize machine learning to analyze the predictive value of 3 commonly used clinical measures to assess 2-year outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Methods: XGBoost was used to analyze data from 2790 TSA patients and create predictive algorithms for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scores and also quantify the most meaningful predictive features utilized by these measures and for all questions comprising each measure to rank and compare their value to predict 2-year outcomes after TSA. Results: Our results demonstrate that the ASES, Constant, and UCLA measures rarely considered the most-predictive features relevant to 2-year TSA outcomes and that each outcome measure was composed of questions with different distributions of predictive value. Specifically, the questions composing the UCLA score were of greater predictive value than the Constant questions, and the questions composing the Constant score were of greater predictive value than the ASES questions. We also found the preoperative Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score to be of greater predictive value than the preoperative ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores. Finally, we identified the types of preoperative input questions that were most-predictive (subjective self-assessments of pain and objective measurements of active range of motion and strength) and also those that were least-predictive of 2-year TSA outcomes (subjective task-specific activities of daily living questions). Discussion: Machine learning can quantify the predictive value of the ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores after TSA. Future work should utilize this and related techniques to construct a more efficient and effective clinical outcome measure that incorporates subjective and objective input questions to better account for the preoperative factors that influence postoperative outcomes after TSA. Level of Evidence: Level III; Retrospective Comparative Study