Faculty Bibliography

The advent of value-based care as a component of the United States health care system is part of a broader paradigm shifting away from fee-for-service payment models in favor of alternative reimbursement incentives tied to quality and outcome metrics. Bundled care models, gainsharing agreements, and other cost containment measures, although promising, may induce unintended systemwide consequences for orthopedic trauma surgeons who often specialize in tending to costly multiply injured patients and marginalized populations. This article reviews facets of value-based care applicable to orthopedic trauma surgery with an emphasis on public health and ethical considerations for policymakers and orthopedic surgeons.

By the end of their training, all orthopaedic residents should be competent in understanding musculoskeletal research enough to navigate the literature and base clinical decisions on it. To accomplish this, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires involvement in scholarly activity. For those interested in academics and having additional involvement in research, there can be many benefits including professional achievement and intellectual /personal satisfaction. A number of potential career models exist for those interested in being engaged in musculoskeletal research, so trainees should seek the training and level of involvement in research that will help them achieve their individual academic goals. To that end, trainees should become involved with research early and identify research mentors in their field of interest (at home or from afar). Training programs and faculty members should create a milieu conducive to research productivity and support and equip trainees who have such aspirations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This study compared costs, length of visit, and utilization trends for patients with fractures seen in an immediate care orthopaedic center (I-Care) versus the emergency department (ED) in a major metropolitan area. METHODS:A retrospective chart review of consecutive patients seen on an outpatient basis in the ED and I-Care over a 6-month period was conducted. Patient demographics, procedures done, care category, estimated costs, and disposition information were included for statistical analysis. Within the low-acuity fracture care group, a cost-comparison analysis was conducted. RESULTS:A total of 610 patients met inclusion criteria with 311 seen in I-Care and 299 in the ER. I-Care patients were more likely to have low-acuity injuries compared with ED patients (60.1% versus 18.1%, P < 0.001). The length of visit was longer for patients seen in the ED compared with I-Care (6.1 versus 1.43 hours, P value < 0.001). A cost analysis of low-acuity patients revealed that an estimated $62,150 USD could have been saved in healthcare costs by the initial diversion of low-acuity patients seen in the ER to I-Care during the study period. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:These results suggest that the I-Care orthopaedic urgent care model is a more cost-effective and more efficient alternative to the ED for patients with fractures requiring procedural treatment and low-acuity patients managed on an outpatient basis.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine if matching by trauma risk score is non-inferior to matching by chronic comorbidities and/or a combination of demographic and patient characteristics in observational studies of acute trauma in a hip fracture model. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study SETTING: Level-1 Trauma Center PATIENTS: 1,590 hip fracture [AO/OTA 31A and 31B] patients age 55 and over treated between October 2014 and February 2020 at 4 hospitals within a single academic medical center. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Repeatedly matching randomized subsets of patients by (1) Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA), (2) Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), or (3) a combination of sex, age, CCI and body mass index (BMI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:"Matching failures" where rate of significant differences in variables of matched cohorts exceeds the 5% expected by chance. RESULTS:STTGMA and combination matching resulted in no "matching failures". Matching by CCI alone resulted in "matching failures" of BMI, ASA class, STTGMA, major complications, sepsis, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, and 90-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS:STTGMA matching in observational cohort studies is less likely to yield significant differences of demographics and outcomes than CCI matching. STTGMA matching is noninferior to matching a combination of demographic variables optimized for each treatment cohort. STTGMA matching is apt to reflect equipoise of health at admission and outcome likelihood in observational cohort studies of orthopedic trauma, while maintaining consistent weighting of demographic and injury characteristic variables that may expand the generalizability of these studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

The dataset presented was collected via retrospective review from an orthopedic trauma database approved by the institutional review board at the author's institution from patients treated at any of the four hospitals serviced by the academic orthopedic surgery department. Femoral neck and intertrochanteric hip fracture patients from low energy mechanisms admitted between October 2014 and February 2020, were selected if they were age 55 or older and had recorded sex, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, Glasgow Coma Score, Abbreviated Injury Severity score for the chest, head and neck, and extremities, and ambulation status prior to injury. The resultant 1,590 subject dataset may be analysed via the supplied R statistical code to determine the frequency of equipoise in baseline and outcome variables from propensity matching via three matching schemes. The code implements three matching schemes including matching by (1) The Score for Trauma Triage in Geriatric and Middle-Aged (STTGMA) (2) CCI alone, or (3) a combination of sex, age, CCI and BMI. The code selects a subset of ten percent of hip fracture patients by a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG). The code matches the remaining patients 1:1 to the selected patients by propensity score generated by logistic regression of STTGMA, CCI, or a combination of sex, age, CCI and BMI using greedy nearest neighbor matching without replacement by the MatchIt package for R software. The code then compares matched cohorts by Chi-square, Fisher, or Mann-Whitney U test with significance level of 0.05 representing a 5% chance of significant differences due to random sampling of subjects. The supplied code repeats the random selection, matching and testing process 100,000 times for each matching method. The resultant code output is the frequency of significantly different demographic or outcome parameters among matched cohorts by matching method. This data and statistical code have reuse potential to explore alternative matching schemes. The supplied baseline variables should be robust enough to derive alternative risk scores for each patient which may be included as a matching variable for comparison. The authors also look forward to unexpected ways that this data may be used by readers.

The method of skin closure and post-operative wound management has always been important in orthopedic surgery and plays an even larger role now that surgical site infection (SSI) is a national healthcare metric for both surgeons and hospitals. Wound related issues remain some of the most feared complications following orthopedic trauma procedures and are associated with significant morbidity. In order to minimize the risk of surgical site complications, surgeons must be familiar with the physiology of wound healing as well as the patient and surgical factors affecting healing potential. The goal of all skin closure techniques is to promote rapid healing with acceptable cosmesis, all while minimizing risk of infection and dehiscence. Knowledge of the types of closure material, techniques of wound closure, surgical dressings, negative pressure wound therapy, and other local modalities is important to optimize wound healing. There is no consensus in the literature as to which closure method is superior but the available data can be used to make informed choices. Although often left to less experienced members of the surgical team, the process of wound closure and dressing the wound should not be an afterthought, and instead must be part of the surgical plan. Wounds that are in direct communication with bony fractures are particularly at risk due to local tissue trauma, resultant swelling, hematoma formation, and injured vasculature.

In this study, we evaluated risk factors for gram-negative fracture-related infection in a mixed cohort of gram-positive and gram-negative fracture-related infections to guide perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical fixation of fractures. We performed a retrospective review of all patients with fracture who were treated at an urban academic level I trauma center between February 1, 2012, and June 30, 2017. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) open or closed fracture with internal fixation; (2) deep, acute to subacute (<6 weeks), culture-positive fracture-related infection; and (3) age 18 years or older. Infections were classified as gram positive, gram negative, or polymicrobial. Demographic, surgical, and postoperative characteristics were compared among groups. Of 3360 patients, 43 (1.3%) had a fracture-related infection (15 gram negative, 14 gram positive, and 14 polymicrobial). Risk factors for gram-negative infection included initial external fixation (P=.038), the need for soft tissue coverage of an open fracture site (P=.039), lower albumin level at the time of infection (P=.005), and hospitalization for longer than 10 days (P=.018). Perioperative gram-negative antibiotic prophylaxis for fracture fixation surgery should be considered for those who have been staged with external fixation, require soft tissue coverage, are at risk for malnutrition in the postoperative period, and have prolonged inpatient hospitalization. [Orthopedics. 20XX;XX(X):xx-xx.].

BACKGROUND:Women have long been underrepresented in orthopaedic surgery; however, there is a lack of quantitative data on the representation of women in orthopaedic academic program leadership. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:(1) What is the proportion of women in leadership roles in orthopaedic surgery departments and residency programs in the United States (specifically, chairs, vice chairs, program directors, assistant program directors, and subspecialty division chiefs)? (2) How do women and men leaders compare in terms of years in position in those roles, years in practice, academic rank, research productivity as represented by publications, and subspecialty breakdown? (3) Is there a difference between men and women in the chair or program director role in terms of whether they are working in that role at institutions where they attended medical school or completed their residency or fellowship? METHODS:We identified 161 academic orthopaedic residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website. Data (gender, length of time in position, length of time in practice, professorship appointment, research productivity as indirectly measured via PubMed publications, and subspecialty) were collected for chairs, vice chairs, program directors, assistant program directors, and subspecialty division chiefs in July 2020 to control for changes in leadership. Information not provided by the ACGME and PubMed was found using orthopaedic program websites and the specific leader's curriculum vitae. Complete data were obtained for chairs and program directors, but there were missing data points for vice chairs, assistant program directors, and division chiefs. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS using independent t-tests for continuous variables and the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables, with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS:Three percent (4 of 153) of chairs, 8% (5 of 61) of vice chairs, 11% (18 of 161) of program directors, 27% (20 of 75) of assistant program directors, and 9% (45 of 514) of division chiefs were women. There were varying degrees of missing data points for vice chairs, assistant program directors, and division chiefs as not all programs reported or have those positions. Women chairs had fewer years in their position than men (2 ± 1 versus 9 ± 7 [95% confidence interval -9.3 to -5.9]; p < 0.001). Women vice chairs more commonly specialized in hand or tumor compared with men (40% [2 of 5] and 40% [2 of 5] versus 11% [6 of 56] and 4% [2 of 56], respectively; X2(9) = 16; p = 0.04). Women program directors more commonly specialized in tumor or hand compared with men (33% [6 of 18] and 17% [3 of 18] versus 6% [9 of 143] and 11% [16 of 143], respectively; X2(9) = 20; p = 0.02). Women assistant program directors had fewer years in practice (9 ± 4 years versus 14 ± 11 years [95% CI -10.5 to 1.6]; p = 0.045) and fewer publications (11 ± 7 versus 30 ± 48 [95% CI -32.9 to -5.8]; p = 0.01) than men. Women division chiefs had fewer years in practice and publications than men and were most prevalent in tumor and pediatrics (21% [10 of 48] and 16% [9 of 55], respectively) and least prevalent in spine and adult reconstruction (2% [1 of 60] and 1% [1 of 70], respectively) (X2(9) = 26; p = 0.001). Women program directors were more likely than men to stay at the same institution they studied at for medical school (39% [7 of 18] versus 14% [20 of 143]; odds ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.4 to 11.3]; p = 0.02) and trained at for residency (61% [11 of 18] versus 42% [60 of 143]; OR 2.2 [95% CI 0.8 to 5.9]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION:The higher percentage of women in junior leadership positions in orthopaedic surgery, with the data available, is a promising finding. Hand, tumor, and pediatrics appear to be orthopaedic subspecialties with a higher percentage of women. However, more improvement is needed to achieve gender parity in orthopaedics overall, and more information is needed in terms of publicly available information on gender representation in orthopaedic leadership. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:Proportional representation of women in orthopaedics is essential for quality musculoskeletal care, and proportional representation in leadership may help encourage women to apply to the specialty. Our findings suggest movement in an improving direction in this regard, though more progress is needed.

OBJECTIVE:To identify the patient, injury and treatment factors associated with an acute infection during the treatment of open ankle fractures in a large multi-center retrospective review. To evaluate the effect of infectious complications on the rates of nonunion, malunion, and loss of reduction. DESIGN/METHODS:Multi-center Retrospective Review. SETTING/METHODS:Sixteen Trauma Centers. PATIENTS/METHODS:One thousand and three consecutive skeletally mature patients (514 men and 489 women) with open ankle fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Fracture-related infection (FRI) in open ankle fractures. RESULTS:The charts of 1,003 consecutive patients were reviewed and 712 patients (357 women and 355 men) had at least 12 weeks of clinical follow-up. Their average age was 50 years (range 16-96), and average BMI was 31; they sustained OTA/AO types 44A (12%), 44B (58%), and 44C (30%) open ankle fractures. The rate FRI rate was 15%. A multivariable regression analysis identified male sex, diabetes, smoking, immunosuppressant use, time to wound closure, and wound location as independent risk factors for infection. There were 77 cases of malunion, nonunion, loss of reduction and/or implant failure; FRI was associated with higher rates of these complications (p=0.01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Several patient, injury and surgical factors were associated with fracture-related infection in the treatment of open ankle fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.