PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (617581)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Recurrent Dislocation of the Shoulder Joint 
Dr. Anthony F. DePalma is shown. Photograph provided with kind permission of the Art Committee of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Dr. DePalma was the first editor of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, established by the recently formed Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. The idea of forming the Association of Bone and Joint surgeons had been conceived by Dr. Earl McBride of Oklahoma City in 1947, and organized by a group of twelve individuals (Drs. Earl McBride, Garrett Pipkin, Duncan McKeever, Judson Wilson, Fritz Teal, Louis Breck, Henry Louis Green, Howard Shorbe, Theodore Vinke, Paul Williams, Eugene Secord, and Frank Hand) [9]. The first organizational meeting was held in conjunction with the 1949 Annual Meeting of the AAOS [9] and the first annual meeting held April 1–2, 1949 in Oklahoma City. Drs. McBride and McKeever invited Dr. DePalma to attend that meeting and join the society. According to DePalma, “Even at this small gathering, there were whisperings of the need of another journal to provide an outlet for the many worthy papers written on clinical and basic science subjects” [7]. The decision to form a new journal was finalized in 1951, and Drs. DePalma and McBride signed a contract with J.B. Lippincott Company. Dr. DePalma was designated Editor-in-Chief, and the journal became a reality in 1953 with the publication of the first volume. From the outset he established the “symposium” as a unique feature, in which part of the articles were devoted to a particular topic. Dr. DePalma served as Editor for 13 years until 1966, when he resigned the position and recommended the appointment of Dr. Marshall R. Urist. At his retirement, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research was well established as a major journal.
Dr. Anthony F. DePalma was born in Philadelphia in 1904, the son of immigrants from Alberona in central Foggia, Italy [1]. He attended the University of Maryland for his premedical education, then Jefferson Medical College, from which he graduated in 1929. He then served a two-year internship (common at the time) at Philadelphia General Hospital. Jobs were scarce owing to the Depression, and he felt fortunate to obtain in 1931 a position as assistant surgeon at the Coaldale State Hospital, in Coaldale, Pennsylvania, a mining town. However, he became attracted to orthopaedics and looked for a preceptorship (postgraduate training in specialties was not well developed at this time before the establishments of Boards). In the fall of 1932, he was appointed as a preceptor at the New Jersey Orthopaedic Hospital, an extension of the New York Orthopaedic Hospital. In 1939 he acquired Board certification (the first board examination was offered in 1935 for a fee of $25.00 [2]) and was appointed to the NJOH staff [1].
Dr. DePalma volunteered for military service in 1942, and served first at the Parris Island Naval Hospital in South Carolina, then on the Rixey, a hospital ship. In addition to serving to evacuate casualties to New Zealand, his ship was involved in several of the Pacific island assaults (Guam, Leyte, Okinawa). In 1945, he was assigned to the Naval Hospital in Philadelphia [1].
On his return to Philadelphia, he contacted staff members at Jefferson Medical College, including the Chair, Dr. James Martin, and became good friends with Dr. Bruce Gill (a professor of Orthopaedics at the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the earliest Presidents of the AAOS). After he was discharged from the service, he joined the staff of the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at Jefferson, where he remained the rest of his career. He succeeded Dr. Martin as Chair in 1950, a position he held until 1970 when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 65. He closed his practice and moved briefly to Pompano Beach, Florida, but the lure of academia proved too powerful, and in January, 1971, he accepted the offer to develop a Division of Orthopaedics at the New Jersey College of Medicine and became their Chair. He committed to a five-year period, and then again moved to Pompano Beach, only to take the Florida State Boards and open a private practice in 1977. His practice grew, and he continued that practice until 1983 at the age of nearly 79. Even then he continued to travel and lecture [1].
We reproduce here four of his many contributions on the shoulder. The first comes from his classic monograph, “Surgery of the Shoulder,” published by J. B. Lippincott in 1950 [2]. In this article he describes the evolutionary development of the shoulder, focusing on the distinction between various primates, and relates the anatomic changes to upright posture and prehensile requirements. The remaining three are journal articles related to frozen shoulder [1], recurrent dislocation [3], and surgical anatomy of the rotator cuff [6], three of the most common shoulder problems then and now. He documented the histologic inflammation and degeneration in various tissues including the coracohumeral ligaments, supraspinatus tendon, bursal wall, subscapularis musculotendinous junction, and biceps tendon. Thus, the problem was rather more global than localized. He emphasized, “Manipulation of frozen shoulders is a dangerous and futile procedure.” For recurrent dislocation he advocated the Magnuson procedure (transfer of the subscapularis tendon to the greater tuberosity) to create a musculotendinous sling. All but two of 23 patients he treated with this approach were satisfied with this relatively simple procedure. (Readers will note the absence of contemporary approaches to ascertain outcomes and satisfaction. The earliest outcome musculoskeletal measures were introduced in the 60s by Larson [11] and then by Harris [10], but these instruments were physician-generated and do not reflect the rather more rigorously validated patient-generated outcome measures we use today. Nonetheless, the approach used by Dr. DePalma reflected the best existing standards of reporting results.) Dr. DePalma’s classic article, “Surgical Anatomy of the Rotator Cuff and the Natural History of Degenerative Periarthritis,” [6] reflected his literature review and dissections of 96 shoulders from 50 individuals “unaware of any (shoulder) disability” and mostly over the age of 40. By the fifth decade, most specimens began to show signs of rotator cuff tearing and he found complete tears in nine specimens from “the late decades.” He concluded,
“Based on the…observations, one can reasonably construct the natural history of periarthritis of the shoulder. It is apparent that aging is an important etiological factor, and with aging certain changes take place in the connective tissue elements of the musculotendinous cuff…it is also apparent that in slowly developing lesions of this nature compensating adjustments in the mechanics of the joint take place so that severe alterations in the mechanics of the joint do not appear. However, one must admit that such a joint is very vulnerable and, if subjected to minor trauma, the existing degenerative lesion would be extended and aggravated.”
Thus, he clearly defined the benign effects of rotator cuff tear in many aging individuals, but also the potential to create substantial pain and disability.
Dr. DePalma was a prolific researcher and writer. In addition to his “Surgery of the Shoulder,” he wrote three other books, “Diseases of the Knee: Management in Medicine and Surgery” (published by J.B. Lippincott in 1954) [4], “The Management of Fractures and Dislocations” (a large and comprehensive two volume work published by W.B. Saunders in 1959, and going through 5 reprintings) [5], and “The Intervertebral Disc” (published by W.B. Saunders in 1970, and written with his colleague, Dr. Richard Rothman) [8]. PubMed lists 62 articles he published from 1948 until 1992.
We wish to pay tribute to Dr. DePalma for his vision in establishing Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research as a unique journal and for his many contributions to orthopaedic surgery.
References
DePalma A. Loss of scapulohumeral motion (frozen shoulder). Ann Surg. 1952;135:193–204.DePalma AF. Origin and comparative anatomy of the pectoral limb. In: DePalma AF, ed. Surgery of the Shoulder. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1950:1–14.DePalma AF. Recurrent dislocation of the shoulder joint. Ann Surg. 1950;132:1052–1065.DePalma AF. Diseases of the Knee: Management in Medicine and Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Company; 1954.DePalma AF. The Management of Fractures and Dislocations—An Atlas. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1959.DePalma AF. Surgical anatomy of the rotator cuff and the natural history of degenerative periarthritis. Surg Clin North Am. 1963;43:1507–1520.DePalma AF. A lifetime of devotion to the Janus of orthopedics. Bridging the gap between the clinic and laboratory. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;265:146–169.DePalma AF, Rothman RH. The Intervertebral Disc. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1970.Derkash RS. History of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;337:306–309.Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.Larson CB. Rating scale for hip disabilities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963;31:85–93.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0105-3
PMCID: PMC2505210  PMID: 18264840
2.  The Evolution of Advocacy and Orthopaedic Surgery 
Background
The future direction of American health care has become increasingly controversial during the last decade. As healthcare costs, quality, and delivery have come under intense scrutiny, physicians play evolving roles as “advocates” for both their profession and patients via healthcare policy. Hospital-physician alignment is critical to the future success of advocacy among orthopaedic surgeons, as both hospitals and physicians are key stakeholders in health care and can work together to influence major health policy decisions.
Questions/purposes
We (1) define the role of advocacy in medicine, specifically within orthopaedic surgery; (2) explore the history of physician advocacy and its evolution; (3) examine the various avenues of involvement for orthopaedic surgeons interested in advocacy; and (4) reflect on the impact of such activities on the future of orthopaedic surgery as it relates to hospital-physician alignment.
Methods
We performed a comprehensive review of the literature through a bibliographic search of MEDLINE® and Google Scholar databases from January 2000 to December 2010 to identify articles related to advocacy and orthopaedic surgery.
Results
Advocacy among orthopaedic surgeons is critical in guiding the future of the American healthcare system. In today’s world, advocacy necessitates a wider effort to improve healthcare access, quality, and delivery for patients on a larger scale. The nature of physician advocacy among orthopaedic surgeons is grounded in the desire to serve patients and alleviate their suffering. Participation in medical societies and political campaigns are two avenues of involvement.
Conclusions
The increasing role of government in American health care will require a renewed commitment to advocacy efforts from orthopaedic surgeons. The role of advocacy is rapidly redefining the continuum of care to a trinity of clinical excellence, innovative research, and effective advocacy. Failure to recognize this growing role of advocacy limits the impact we can have for our patients.
doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2900-3
PMCID: PMC3706663  PMID: 23479232
3.  Clinical and Experimental Observations with Regard to the Injection of Certain Agents (Pregl’s Solution) into Chronic Arthritic Joints 
J.E.M. (Tommy) Thomson was born in Los Angeles, California in 1989, of “pious and scholarly” parents with “evangelistic...interests” [3]. His grandfather had been a missionary bishop in the Methodist Church. He attended Evanston Academy and then Northwestern University. While he began his medical studies at Texas Christian College, he completed his medical education at Rush Medical College in 1915. He took an internship in Chicago, where his mentors reportedly included Drs. Edwin Ryerson (first President of the AAOS), John Ridlon, and Dallas Phemister [3]. In 1916 he began medical practice with H. Winnett Orr in Lincoln, Nebraska. During WW I he served in the University of Nebraska Overseas Base Hospital No. 49. He returned to practice after the war in 1919 and remained in Lincoln during his professional life. In addition to his professional interests, he and his wife shared an interest in cattle breeding and for a while had extensive ranching interests in Nebraska. The last few years of his life were spent in semiretirement in Rancho Santa Fe, California.
Dr. Thomson traveled widely and made many friends worldwide. In 1955 he took a trip around the world but he had many other travels and was an honorary member of a number of foreign orthopaedic societies including the Czechoslovakian Orthopaedic Society, The Polish Orthopaedic and Trauma Society, the Finnish Orthopaedic Association, and the Latin American Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Dr. Thomson traveled to all continents except Australia. He was a founding member of the Orthopaedic Research society. As with a number of the early offices of the AAOS, Dr. Thomson was active in the American Orthopaedic Association and the Clinical Orthopaedic Society and served as President of the latter in 1936. The Instructional Course Lectures were evidently his “brainchild” [3]. The record is unclear of the beginnings, although they evidently arose out of motion picture exhibits. What is clear is the first Instructional Course Lectures were presented in 1942 and published in 1943 with Dr. Thomson as editor. At the 1946 annual meeting, Dr. Thomson was selected to “establish and monitor the Instructional Course Lectures” [2]. He continued to serve as editor of the published Instructional Course Lectures until 1948. One account suggests the idea of a central office was his, and that he personally furnished a temporary central office in Lincoln until permanent headquarters could be established [1]. He was a man of great energy and bearing. In his Presidential Lecture he commented, “There is an old saying – you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. I sometimes feel that in our post-war fervor, in behalf of the veterans separated from military service, we tend to encourage some conscientious young men to enter a field of training for which they are totally unsuited.” Despite infirmities in his last years (he had bilateral hip prostheses), he continued to be active, and died while giving lectures at the University of Kansas (“as he would have wished ‘with his boots on.’” [3]).
The article we reprint here reflects Thomson’s innovative thinking. Surgical alternatives for chronic arthritis were not well developed in 1932 and Thomson explored a method described by Pregl of Vienna [4]. Pregl injected a “secret preparation” that was a “non-irritating, non-staining, watery solution of free and combined iodine with certain idodides.” Thomson described his own similar solution, and used two to five injections spaced five to seven days apart. He reported the results in 15 patients, most with undefined or posttraumatic arthritis, but one with gonorrheal and one with likely acute joint sepsis, and two with bursitis (olecranon and prepatellar). He further produced experimental arthritis in four rabbits by injection of microbes or a dilute carbolic acid solution. Two to four weeks later, he injected Pregl’s solution and noted resolution. His observations, he concluded, warranted “further investigation and a more general use of Pregl’s solution in treating chronic effusion of arthritic and traumatized joints.” J.E.M. Thomson, MD is shown. Photograph is reproduced with permission and ©American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Fifty Years of Progress, 1983.
References
Heck CV. Commemorative Volume 1933–1983 Fifty Years of Progress. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1983.Heck CV. Fifty Years of Progress: In Recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1983.James E. M. Thomson 1889–1962. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963;45:206–208.Thomson JEM. Clinical and experimental observations with regard to the injection of certain agents (Pregl's solution) into chronic arthritic joints. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1933;15:483–490.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0012-7
PMCID: PMC2505292  PMID: 18196381
4.  Public Reporting of Cost and Quality Information in Orthopaedics 
Background
Public reporting of patient health outcomes offers the potential to incentivize quality improvement by fostering increased accountability among providers. Voluntary reporting of risk-adjusted outcomes in cardiac surgery, for example, is viewed as a “watershed event” in healthcare accountability. However, public reporting of outcomes, cost, and quality information in orthopaedic surgery remains limited by comparison, attributable in part to the lack of standard assessment methods and metrics, provider fear of inadequate adjustment of health outcomes for patient characteristics (risk adjustment), and historically weak market demand for this type of information.
Questions/purposes
We review the origins of public reporting of outcomes in surgical care, identify existing initiatives specific to orthopaedics, outline the challenges and opportunities, and propose recommendations for public reporting of orthopaedic outcomes.
Methods
We performed a comprehensive review of the literature through a bibliographic search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases from January 1990 to December 2010 to identify articles related to public reporting of surgical outcomes.
Results
Orthopaedic-specific quality reporting efforts include the early FDA adverse event reporting MedWatch program and the involvement of surgeons in the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. Issues that require more work include balancing different stakeholder perspectives on quality reporting measures and methods, defining accountability and attribution for outcomes, and appropriately risk-adjusting outcomes.
Conclusions
Given the current limitations associated with public reporting of quality and cost in orthopaedic surgery, valuable contributions can be made in developing specialty-specific evidence-based performance measures. We believe through leadership and involvement in policy formulation and development, orthopaedic surgeons are best equipped to accurately and comprehensively inform the quality reporting process and its application to improve the delivery and outcomes of orthopaedic care.
doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2077-6
PMCID: PMC3293971  PMID: 21952744
5.  The Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled Eugene H. Pool, Fourth Surgeon-in-Chief 1933–1935 Followed by Philip D. Wilson, Fifth Surgeon-in-Chief 1935 
HSS Journal  2008;4(2):97-106.
In 1933, for the second time in the history of the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled (R & C), a general surgeon, Eugene Hillhouse Pool, MD, was appointed Surgeon-in-Chief by the Board of Managers of the New York Society for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled. R & C (whose name was changed to the Hospital for Special Surgery in 1940), then the oldest orthopaedic hospital in the country, was losing ground as the leading orthopaedic center in the nation. The R & C Board charged Dr. Pool with the task of recruiting the nation’s best orthopaedic surgeon to become the next Surgeon-in-Chief. Phillip D. Wilson, MD, from the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the Harvard Medical School was selected and agreed to accept this challenge. He joined the staff of the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled in the spring of 1934 as Director of Surgery and replaced Dr. Pool as Surgeon-in-Chief the next year. It was the time of the Great Depression, which added a heavy financial toll to the daily operations of the hospital. With a clear and courageous vision, Dr. Wilson reorganized the hospital, its staff responsibilities, professional education and care of patients. He established orthopaedic fellowships to support young orthopaedic surgeons interested in conducting research and assisted them with the initiation of their new practices. Recognizing that the treatment of crippling conditions and hernia were becoming separate specialties, one of his first decisions was to restructure the Hernia Department to become the General Surgery Department. His World War I experiences in Europe helped develop his expertise in the fields of fractures, war trauma and amputations, providing a broad foundation in musculoskeletal diseases that was to be beneficial to him in his future role as the leader of R & C.
doi:10.1007/s11420-008-9081-8
PMCID: PMC2553161  PMID: 18815851
Eugene H. Pool; Virgil P. Gibney; William Bradley Coley; Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled (R & C); New York Hospital; Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS); Philip D. Wilson; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Fiorella H. LaGuardia; Robert Moses; Robert B. Osgood; Memorial Hospital; Philip D. Wilson, Jr; Bradley L. Coley; Bradley L. Coley, Jr; Helen Coley Nauts; Fenwick Beekman
6.  Two Hundred Cases of Paralytic Foot Stabilization after the Method of Hoke 
Dr. Oscar Lee Miller was born on a farm in Franklin County, in northeast Georgia [6]. He obtained a teachers’ certificate and taught school several years after high school before he attended the University of Georgia and then graduated from the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons (now Emory University School of Medicine) in 1912. He took postgraduate training in Atlanta, working with Dr. Michael Hoke (whose name is associated with hindfoot arthrodesis). He entered military service in 1917, then returned to private practice after the armistice. As with other first Presidents of the AAOS, foreign experience was important, and in 1921 he visited Sir Robert Jones and other British surgeons. Upon returning he moved to Gastonia, North Carolina and helped develop the North Carolina Orthopaedic Hospital, an institution focusing on crippled children. In 1923, he opened an office which eventually became the Miller Clinic in nearby Charlotte. (The Miller Clinic and Charlotte Orthopedic Specialists merged in 2005 to create OrthoCarolina.)
Dr. Miller was active in the AOA as well as the AAOS, and was a member of the Argentine Surgical Association. He became President of the AAOS in January, 1942, only days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In his Presidential address he emphasized the importance of the care of crippled children and urged a strong relationship with the Latin American orthopaedic community [1]. He served as Chair of a committee that created the Inter-American Orthopaedic Fellowship Program, for Latin American surgeons to visit training centers in the US. He also urged the AAOS to develop a library “as a repository for all pertinent records.” The Executive Committee outlined a program in June, 1941, to present a “motion picture exhibit,” a feature of the meeting which subsequently became the Instructional Course Lecture [2]. Under his leadership at that meeting, the AAOS passed a resolution regarding support of the country during the war years: “It is the desire of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons to offer its wholehearted support to our Country in this serious emergency.” A telegram with the resolution was sent to the President of the United States.
Miller had a lasting interest in foot surgery, undoubtedly influenced by Hoke. We reprint here Miller’s report of Hoke’s triple arthrodesis for paralytic feet [3]. Astonishingly, Miller states this was the only operation performed for paralytic feet in his clinic over a three-year period, yet he reported 200 cases in this short time; obviously the number of polio patients at the time was devastating. Among these 200 cases, 121 were of the “clubfoot type,” 62 had pes cavus (on which he wrote in 1927 [4]), and 17 pes calcaneus (on which he wrote in 1936 [5]). Miller reports eight cases of flail feet (although it is unclear whether these are additional cases, or fall within one of the three categories since the numbers of those categories add to 200). His focus is to describe the basic operations with indications for supplemental procedures including tendon transfers. As was often common practice in describing procedures at the time, he did not report the followup results and did not provide references [3]. Oscar Lee Miller, MD is shown. Photograph is reproduced with permission and ©American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Fifty Years of Progress, 1983.
References
Heck CV. Commemorative Volume 1933–1983 Fifty Years of Progress. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1983.Heck CV. Fifty Years of Progress: In Recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1983.Miller O. Two hundred cases of paralytic foot stabilization after the method of Hoke. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1925;7:85–97.Miller O. A plastic foot operation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1927;9:84–91.Miller O. Surgical management of pes calcaneus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1936;18:169–172.Oscar Lee Miller 1887–1970. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1971;53:400–401.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0029-y
PMCID: PMC2505288  PMID: 18196377
7.  Work Satisfaction and Retirement Plans of Orthopaedic Surgeons 50 Years of Age and Older 
Retirement age and practice patterns before retirement are important for making accurate workforce predictions for orthopaedic surgeons. A survey of orthopaedic surgeons 50 years of age and older therefore was conducted by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in cooperation with the Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Workforce Studies. The survey focused on three questions: (1) At what age do orthopaedic surgeons retire? (2) Do they stop working abruptly or do they work part time before retirement? (3) What are the major factors that determine when an orthopaedic surgeon retires? According to the survey, the median retirement age for orthopaedic surgeons was 65 years. Nineteen percent of orthopaedic surgeons worked part time before retirement. Decreasing reimbursement and increasing malpractice costs were consistently cited as factors that strongly influenced retirement plans. Career satisfaction was high and was the strongest factor that kept the respondents in the workforce. The option to work part time would have the most impact on keeping orthopaedic surgeons working past the age of 65 years.
Level of Evidence: Level IV Economic and Decision Analyses. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0014-5
PMCID: PMC2505310  PMID: 18196399
8.  Corruption in the health care sector: A barrier to access of orthopaedic care and medical devices in Uganda 
Background
Globally, injuries cause approximately as many deaths per year as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, and 90% of injury deaths occur in low- and middle- income countries. Given not all injuries kill, the disability burden, particularly from orthopaedic injuries, is much higher but is poorly measured at present. The orthopaedic services and orthopaedic medical devices needed to manage the injury burden are frequently unavailable in these countries. Corruption is known to be a major barrier to access of health care, but its effects on access to orthopaedic services is still unknown.
Methods
A qualitative case study of 45 open-ended interviews was conducted to investigate the access to orthopaedic health services and orthopaedic medical devices in Uganda. Participants included orthopaedic surgeons, related healthcare professionals, industry and government representatives, and patients. Participants’ experiences in accessing orthopaedic medical devices were explored. Thematic analysis was used to analyze and code the transcripts.
Results
Analysis of the interview data identified poor leadership in government and corruption as major barriers to access of orthopaedic care and orthopaedic medical devices. Corruption was perceived to occur at the worker, hospital and government levels in the forms of misappropriation of funds, theft of equipment, resale of drugs and medical devices, fraud and absenteeism. Other barriers elicited included insufficient health infrastructure and human resources, and high costs of orthopaedic equipment and poverty.
Conclusions
This study identified perceived corruption as a significant barrier to access of orthopaedic care and orthopaedic medical devices in Uganda. As the burden of injury continues to grow, the need to combat corruption and ensure access to orthopaedic services is imperative. Anti-corruption strategies such as transparency and accountability measures, codes of conduct, whistleblower protection, and higher wages and benefits for workers could be important and initial steps in improving access orthopaedic care and OMDs, and managing the global injury burden.
doi:10.1186/1472-698X-12-5
PMCID: PMC3492067  PMID: 22554349
9.  Shared Decision-making in Orthopaedic Surgery 
Background
The process of clinical decision-making and the patient-physician relationship continue to evolve. Increasing patient involvement in clinical decision-making is embodied in the concept of “shared decision-making” (SDM), in which the patient and physician share responsibility in the clinical decision-making process. Various patients’ decision aid tools have been developed to enhance this process.
Questions/purposes
We therefore (1) describe decision-making models; (2) discuss the different types of patients’ decision aids available to practice SDM; and (3) describe the practice and early impact of SDM on clinical orthopaedic surgery.
Methods
We performed a search of the literature using PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. We identified studies related to shared decision-making and the use of patients’ decision aids in orthopaedics. The search resulted in 113 titles, of which 21 were included with seven studies on patients’ decision aid use specifically in orthopaedics.
Results
Although limited studies suggest the use of patients’ decision aids may enhance decision-making, conclusions about the use of these aids in orthopaedic clinical practice cannot be made and further research examining the best type, timing, and content of patients’ decision aids that will lead to maximum patient involvement and knowledge gains with minimal clinical workflow interruption are needed.
Conclusion
In clinical practice today, patients are increasingly involved in clinical decision-making. Further research on SDM in orthopaedic surgery examining the feasibility and impact on practice, on patients’ willingness and ability to actively participate in shared decision-making, and the timing and type of patients’ decision aids appropriate for use is still needed.
doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2156-8
PMCID: PMC3293980  PMID: 22057819
10.  Online Professional Networks for Physicians: Risk Management 
Background
The rapidly developing array of online physician-only communities represents a potential extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to physicians. These online communities provide physicians with a new range of controls over the information they process, but use of this social media technology carries some risk.
Questions/purposes
The purpose of this review was to help physicians manage the risks of online professional networking and discuss the potential benefits that may come with such networks. This article explores the risks and benefits of physicians engaging in online professional networking with peers and provides suggestions on risk management.
Methods
Through an Internet search and literature review, we scrutinized available case law, federal regulatory code, and guidelines of conduct from professional organizations and consultants. We reviewed the OrthoMind.com site as a case example because it is currently the only online social network exclusively for orthopaedic surgeons.
Results
Existing case law suggests potential liability for orthopaedic surgeons who engage with patients on openly accessible social network platforms. Current society guidelines in both the United States and Britain provide sensible rules that may mitigate such risks. However, the overall lack of a strong body of legal opinions, government regulations as well as practical experience for most surgeons limit the suitability of such platforms. Closed platforms that are restricted to validated orthopaedic surgeons may limit these downside risks and hence allow surgeons to collaborate with one another both as clinicians and practice owners.
Conclusions
Educating surgeons about the pros and cons of participating in these networking platforms is helping them more astutely manage risks and optimize benefits. This evolving online environment of professional interaction is one of few precedents, but the application of risk management strategies that physicians use in daily practice carries over into the online community. This participation should foster ongoing dialogue as new guidelines emerge. This will allow today’s orthopaedic surgeon to feel more comfortable with online professional networks and better understand how to make an informed decision regarding their proper use.
doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2197-z
PMCID: PMC3314765  PMID: 22125249
Medicine & Public Health; Conservative Orthopedics; Orthopedics; Sports Medicine; Surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Medicine/Public Health, general
11.  A population-based study of ambulatory and surgical services provided by orthopaedic surgeons for musculoskeletal conditions 
Background
The ongoing process of population aging is associated with an increase in prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions with a concomitant increase in the demand of orthopaedic services. Shortages of orthopaedic services have been documented in Canada and elsewhere. This population-based study describes the number of patients seen by orthopaedic surgeons in office and hospital settings to set the scene for the development of strategies that could maximize the availability of orthopaedic resources.
Methods
Administrative data from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and Canadian Institute for Health Information hospital separation databases for the 2005/06 fiscal year were used to identify individuals accessing orthopaedic services in Ontario, Canada. The number of patients with encounters with orthopaedic surgeons, the number of encounters and the number of surgeries carried out by orthopaedic surgeons were estimated according to condition groups, service location, patient's age and sex.
Results
In 2005/06, over 520,000 Ontarians (41 per 1,000 population) had over 1.3 million encounters with orthopaedic surgeons. Of those 86% were ambulatory encounters and 14% were in hospital encounters. The majority of ambulatory encounters were for an injury or related condition (44%) followed by arthritis and related conditions (37%). Osteoarthritis accounted for 16% of all ambulatory encounters. Orthopaedic surgeons carried out over 140,000 surgeries in 2005/06: joint replacement accounted for 25% of all orthopaedic surgeries, whereas closed repair accounted for 16% and reductions accounted for 21%. Half of the orthopaedic surgeries were for arthritis and related conditions.
Conclusion
The large volume of ambulatory care points to the significant contribution of orthopaedic surgeons to the medical management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions including arthritis and injuries. The findings highlight that surgery is only one component of the work of orthopaedic surgeons in the management of these conditions. Policy makers and orthopaedic surgeons need to be creative in developing strategies to accommodate the growing workload of orthopaedic surgeons without sacrificing quality of care of patients with musculoskeletal conditions.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-56
PMCID: PMC2682488  PMID: 19335904
12.  Etiology of Congenital Dislocation of the Hip 
Dr. Carl E. Badgley was born in 1893, the son of a Presbyterian minister [2]. He received his medical degree at the University of Michigan in 1919, and became interested in orthopaedic surgery owing to Drs. Hugh Cabot and LeRoy Abbott. He was appointed as an instructor of surgery in 1920 and was appointed professor and head of the Section of Orthopaedic Surgery in 1932, an appointment he retained until 1963 when he retired.
Dr. Badgley, devoted to his home state, was active in organizing institutions and organizations within Michigan. These included the Rackham Arthritis Research Unit within the hospital devoted exclusively to arthritis research and the Michigan Crippled Children Commission. He was active in the Board of Control of Intercollegiate Athletics. As President of the AAOS in 1942, he faced challenges organizing the 1943 meeting owing to the war years and many parts of the social program, particularly for the spouses, were eliminated [3]. (Travel was limited in part due to rationing of gas and a reduction in some public transportation since the war effort had priority on petroleum products.) Of the 235 members and 461 guests attending the 11th Annual Meeting in 1943, 203 of the men were in the military service. Nonetheless, during his year of Presidency of the AAOS, Instructional Course Lectures (13 courses) were introduced at the 1942 annual meeting (at a cost of $1.00 per course) and were an immediate success [3]. They were first published the following year (1943) by J.W. Edwards Co., of Ann Arbor, Michigan (who continued to publish the ICL through 1958), under the editorship of a future AAOS President, Dr. Tommy Thomson.
The article we reproduce here details the two major theories of congenital dislocation of the hip: “a primary germinal fault…(and)…a defect of development of environmental origin” [1]. As a true scientist, he commented, “The most commonly accepted theory of developmental abnormality is a primary failure of proper formation of the acetabulum, particularly a germinal failure of development of the posterior superior buttress of the ilium…It is difficult to see how an observer, unless influenced by the weight of pre-existing statements and concepts, can authoritatively state a hypothesis as an accepted fact. The author denies dogmatically, for example, that there is scientific evidence of a primary genetic developmental fault of the posterior superior portion of the acetabulum. He does not refute the existence of such a lesion, but contends that no satisfactory evidence has been submitted that this lesion is the primary developmental fault.” How often do we make our judgments based on the “weight of preexisting statements,” rather than compelling observations and data? Also as a true scientist, his thorough review leads to and ends with a hypothesis: “Congenital dislocation and congenital dysplasia of the hip may be regarded as the result of faulty development, due to environmental factors extrinsic to the hip joint. An inherited fault in the timing of development may produce these extrinsic changes… Heredity can play an important part in altering the growth and time factors.” Despite astonishing technical advances, we have the same working hypothesis today and DDH may indeed be related to the timing of genetically controlled events in conjunction with external factors; the details of the genetic factors are being explored with tools not available to Dr. Badgley, but we seem no closer to the larger answer.Carl E. Badgley, MD is shown. Photograph is reproduced with permission and ©American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Fifty Years of Progress, 1983.
References
Badgley CE. Etiology of congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31:341–356.Carl E. Badgley, M.D. 1893–1973. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1112–1113.Heck CV. Fifty Years of Progress: In Recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1983.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0020-7
PMCID: PMC2505289  PMID: 18196378
13.  Patient Decision Aids in Joint Replacement Surgery: A Literature Review and An Opinion Survey of Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeons 
INTRODUCTION
Patient decision aids could facilitate shared decision-making in joint replacement surgery. However, patient decision aids are not routinely used in this setting.
METHODS
With a view to developing a patient decision aid for UK hip/knee joint replacement practice, we undertook a systematic search of the literature for evidence on the use of shared decision-making and patient decision aids in orthopaedics, and a national survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons on the potential acceptability and feasibility of patient decision aids.
RESULTS
We found little published evidence regarding shared decision-making or patient decision aids in orthopaedics. In the survey, 362 of 639 (57%) randomly selected consultant orthopaedic surgeons responded. Respondents appear representative of consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK. Of 272 valid responses, 79% (95% CI, 73–85%) thought patient decision aids a good or excellent idea. There was consensus on the potential helpfulness of patient decision aids and core content. A booklet to take home was the preferred medium/practice model.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the increased emphasis on patient involvement in decision-making, there is little evidence in the medical literature relating to shared decision-making or the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic surgery. Further research in this area of clinical practice is required. Our survey shows that consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK are generally positive about the use of patient decision aids for joint replacement surgery. Survey results could inform future development of patient decision aids for joint replacement practice in the UK.
doi:10.1308/003588408X285748
PMCID: PMC2430464  PMID: 18430333
Decision support techniques; Arthroplasty; Attitude of health personnel; Questionnaire
14.  Arthroplasty of the Elbow 
Willis Cohoon Campbell was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1880. He received his undergraduate training in his home state and medical training at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where he graduated in 1924 [5]. After serving a two-year internship, he went into private practice in Memphis, Tennessee. As with other prominent orthopaedic surgeons (Ryerson among them), he visited medical centers in Europe, particularly London and Vienna. He evidently then spent some time in postgraduate work in New York City prior to returning to private practice in Memphis. (Most formal residencies were not established until the 1930s coincident with the formation of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery in 1934, although many doctors took “postgraduate” work following one or two years of internship in general medicine or surgery.) In 1910, he was asked to organize a Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Tennessee Medical School as the first Professor of Orthopaedics, a post he held until his death.
In addition to forming a department for the university, Campbell helped establish one of the first hospitals for crippled children in the south, then the Willis Cohoon Campbell Clinic in 1920 [1], and finally in 1923 the Hospital for Crippled Adults. The Campbell clinic provided postgraduate training, meeting the requirements of the American Board for the Certification of Specialists. Dr. Campbell, while not one of the original nine board members of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, was influential in establishing the Board in 1934. According to Wickstrom [4], a “...persistent rumor, repeatedly denied, held that Henderson (Melvin) and Campbell were the primary movers behind the establishment of both the American Academy of Orthopaedic surgeons and the American Board in Orthopaedic Surgery; their actions were said to be a retaliatory response to their rejection by the orthopaedic establishment ‘in the East.’” Be that as it may, Dr. Campbell served as President of a number of professional organizations [1]. He published many papers and three monographs, including the classic “Operative Orthopaedics” [3], which has gone through 10 editions, was the standard textbook for orthopaedic surgeons for decades and remains one of the most widely read references. Dr. Campbell was widely known as a kind, courteous man [5].
The article reproduced here describes arthroplasty of the elbow to restore motion to ankylosed joints [2]. In this article Campbell recognized some of the described resection arthroplasties (usually with interposition of various materials) left the elbow unstable and weak. He advocated creating a “double flap” of the triceps aponeurosis and underlying periosteum and suturing that to the anterior capsule of the elbow after resecting bone. This, he suggested, allowed functional motion within 6 months in the two cases he described. Interestingly, in his “Operative Orthopaedics” published in 1939, he recommends covering the exposed bony surfaces with fascia lata, and does not describe attaching the flap of the triceps to the anterior capsule, but rather suggests attaching “at a lower point than its former attachment to permit free play of the joint in flexion” [3].
Willis Cohoon Campbell, MD is shown. Photograph is reproduced with permission and ©American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Fifty Years of Progress, 1983.
References
Calandruccio RA. The history of the Campbell Clinic. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000:157–170.Campbell WC. Arthroplasty of the elbow. Ann Surg. 1922;76:615–623.Campbell WC. Operative Orthopedics. Saint Louis: CV Mosby Co; 1939.Wickstrom JK. Fifty years of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery: 1934. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:3–10.Willis Cohoon Campbell 1880–1941. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1941;23:716–717.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0032-3
PMCID: PMC2505280  PMID: 18196369
15.  The Vienna Heritage of Iowa Orthopaedics 
The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal  2003;23:108-122.
Strong traditions of basic research, clinical innovation, teaching and integrating science and evaluation of outcomes into clinical practice have characterized University of Iowa orthopaedics for ninety years. These traditions were brought to Iowa City from Vienna when Iowa City was a town of fewer than 10,000 people in a sparsely populated rural state. In the last third of the 19th century, surgeons at the University of Vienna, led by Theodore Billroth (1829-1894), helped transform the practice of surgery. They developed new more effective procedures, analyzed the results of their operations, promoted the emergence and growth of surgical specialties and sought understanding of tissue structure, physiology and pathophysiology. Their efforts made Vienna one of the world's most respected centers for operative treatment, basic and clinical research and surgical education. Two individuals who followed Billroth, Eduard Albert (1841-1900) and Adolf Lorenz (1854-1946) focused their research and clinical practice on orthopaedics. Their successes in the study and treatment of musculoskeletal disorders led one of their students, Arthur Steindler (1878-1959), a 1902 graduate of the Vienna Medical School, to pursue a career in orthopaedics. Following medical school, he worked in Lorenz's orthopaedic clinic until 1907 when he joined John Ridlon (1852-1936) at the Chicago Home for Crippled Children. In 1910, Steindler became Professor of Orthopaedics at the Drake Medical School in Des Moines, Iowa, and, in 1913, John G. Bowman, the President of the University of Iowa, recruited him to establish an orthopaedic clinical and academic program in Iowa City. For the next third of a century he guided the development of the University of Iowa Orthopaedics Department, helped establish the fields of orthopaedic biomechanics and kinesiology and tirelessly stressed the importance of physiology, pathology and assessment of the outcomes of operations. From the legacy of Billroth, Albert and Lorenz, Arthur Steindler created an internationally recognized center for orthopaedic care, research and teaching in Iowa City.
PMCID: PMC1888385  PMID: 14575261
16.  The Current Practice of Orthopaedic Oncology in North America 
Background
The field of orthopaedic oncology in North America has been formalized over the past 30 years with the development of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) and fellowship education opportunities.
Questions/purposes
To characterize current practices we assessed the fellowship education, practice setting, constitution of clinical practice, bone and soft tissue sarcoma treatment volume, perceived challenges and rewards of the career, and the nonclinical activities of orthopaedic oncologists.
Methods
Members of the MSTS and attendees of the 2009 AAOS–MSTS Specialty Day meeting were invited to participate in a twenty-three question online survey. One hundred and four surgeons including 99 of the 192 (52%) MSTS members completed the online survey.
Results
Sixty-nine of the 104 (66%) responding surgeons completed a 1-year musculoskeletal oncology fellowship. Thirty-eight (37%) completed an additional orthopaedic subspecialty fellowship. Seventy-four (79%) work in an academic practice and 70 (+/− 16) % of clinical time is spent practicing musculoskeletal oncology. An average of 20 (+/− 16) bone and 40 (+/− 36) soft tissue sarcomas were treated annually. Insufficient institutional support, reimbursement, and emotional stresses were perceived as the most important challenges in a musculoskeletal oncology practice. Sixty-seven (64%) of the surgeons reported serving in a leadership position at the departmental or national level.
Conclusions
Professional time distribution is similar to other academic orthopaedists. The members of the MSTS are responsible for the treatment of more than two-thirds of bone and soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.
Clinical Relevance
This information can assist the fellowship directors and related professional societies in tailoring their educational programs and the interested orthopaedic resident to make a more informed career choice.
doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1413-6
PMCID: PMC2947687  PMID: 20532714
17.  Factors Driving Physician-Hospital Alignment in Orthopaedic Surgery 
Background
The relationships between physicians and hospitals are viewed as central to the proposition of delivering high-quality health care at a sustainable cost. Over the last two decades, major changes in the scope, breadth, and complexities of these relationships have emerged. Despite understanding the need for physician-hospital alignment, identification and understanding the incentives and drivers of alignment prove challenging.
Questions/purposes
Our review identifies the primary drivers of physician alignment with hospitals from both the physician and hospital perspectives. Further, we assess the drivers more specific to motivating orthopaedic surgeons to align with hospitals.
Methods
We performed a comprehensive literature review from 1992 to March 2012 to evaluate published studies and opinions on the issues surrounding physician-hospital alignment. Literature searches were performed in both MEDLINE® and Health Business™ Elite.
Results
Available literature identifies economic and regulatory shifts in health care and cultural factors as primary drivers of physician-hospital alignment. Specific to orthopaedics, factors driving alignment include the profitability of orthopaedic service lines, the expense of implants, and issues surrounding ambulatory surgery centers and other ancillary services.
Conclusions
Evolving healthcare delivery and payment reforms promote increased collaboration between physicians and hospitals. While economic incentives and increasing regulatory demands provide the strongest drivers, cultural changes including physician leadership and changing expectations of work-life balance must be considered when pursuing successful alignment models. Physicians and hospitals view each other as critical to achieving lower-cost, higher-quality health care.
doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2730-8
PMCID: PMC3706670  PMID: 23229427
18.  From recommendation to action: psychosocial factors influencing physician intention to use Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations 
Background
Evaluating the impact of recommendations based upon health technology assessment (HTA) represents a challenge for both HTA agencies and healthcare policy-makers. Using a psychosocial theoretical framework, this study aimed at exploring the factors affecting physician intention to adopt HTA recommendations. The selected recommendations were prioritisation systems for patients on waiting lists for two surgical procedures: hip and knee replacement and cataract surgery.
Methods
Determinants of physician intention to use HTA recommendations for patient prioritisation were assessed by a questionnaire based upon the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour. A total of 96 physicians from two medical specialties (ophthalmology and orthopaedic surgery) responded to the questionnaire (response rate 44.2%). A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to assess differences between medical specialties on the set of theoretical variables. Given the main effect difference between specialties, two regression models were tested separately to assess the psychosocial determinants of physician intention to use HTA recommendations for the prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for surgical procedures.
Results
Factors influencing physician intention to use HTA recommendations differ between groups of specialists. Intention to use the prioritisation system for patients on waiting lists for cataract surgery among ophthalmologists was related to attitude towards the behaviour, social norms, as well as personal normative beliefs. Intention to use HTA recommendations for patient prioritisation for hip and knee replacement among orthopaedic surgeons was explained by: perception of conditions that facilitated the realisation of the behaviour, personal normative beliefs, and habit of using HTA recommendations in clinical work.
Conclusion
This study offers a model to assess factors influencing the intention to adopt recommendations from health technology assessment into professional practice. Results identify determinant factors that should be considered in the elaboration of strategies to support the implementation of evidence-based practice, with respect to emerging health technologies and modalities of practice. However, it is important to emphasise that behavioural determinants of evidence-based practice vary according to the specific technology considered. Evidence-based implementation of HTA recommendations, as well as other evidence-based practices, should build on a theoretical understanding of the complex forces that shape the practice of healthcare professionals.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-8
PMCID: PMC1459199  PMID: 16722600
19.  Healthcare Technology: Physician Collaboration in Reducing the Surgical Cost 
Background
The increasing cost of providing health care is a national concern. Healthcare spending related to providing hospital care is one of the primary drivers of healthcare spending in the United States. Adoption of advanced medical technologies accounts for the largest percentage of growth in healthcare spending in the United States when compared with other developed countries. Within the specialty of orthopaedic surgery, a variety of implants can result in similar outcomes for patients in several areas of clinical care. However, surgeons often do not know the cost of implants used in a specific procedure or how the use of an implant or technology affects the overall cost of the episode of care.
Questions/purposes
The purposes of this study were (1) to describe physician-led processes for introduction of new surgical products and technologies; and (2) to inform physicians of potential cost savings of physician-led product contract negotiations and approval of new technology.
Methods
We performed a detailed review of the steps taken by two centers that have implemented surgeon-led programs to demonstrate responsibility in technology acquisition and product procurement decision-making.
Results
Each program has developed a physician peer review process in technology and new product acquisition that has resulted in a substantial reduction in spending for the respective hospitals in regard to surgical implants. Implant costs have decreased between 3% and 38% using different negotiating strategies. At the same time, new product requests by physicians have been approved in greater than 90% of instances.
Conclusions
Hospitals need physicians to be engaged and informed in discussions concerning current and new technology and products. Surgeons can provide leadership for these efforts to reduce the cost of high-quality care.
doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2828-7
PMCID: PMC3706644  PMID: 23404417
20.  Geographic Variation in the Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Disc Disease: American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) Quality Improvement Initiative; Part II Candidates 
Spine  2012;37(1):57-66.
Study Design
Retrospective case series
Objective
To examine and document the change in rates and the geographic variation in procedure type and utilization of plating by orthopaedic surgeons for anterior cervical discectomy--fusion (ACDF).
Summary of Background
Age- and gender-adjusted rates of cervical spine surgery have not increased but the rate of cervical spinal fusion has, accounting for 41% of all fusion procedures in 2004.
Methods
Records were selected from the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons Part II examination from 1999–2008. CPT and ICD-9-CM codes were used to determine utilization of structural allograft, autograft/interbody devices, and anterior cervical plating over time and within geographic region. Main outcome measures were physician workforce, and rates and variation of procedure types.
Results
From 1999 to 2008, the number of self-declared orthopaedic spine surgeon candidates increased 24%. Over this period, the annual number of discectomies with fusions for degenerative cervical disc disease increased by 67%, while the number of such operations per surgeon operating on at least one such case increased 48% (p=0.018). Interbody device (0% to 31%; p<0.0001), anterior cervical plating (39% to 79%; p<0.0001), and allograft (14% to 59%; p<0.0001) use increased, while autograft use decreased (86% to 10%; p<0.0001).
The Southwest and Southeast were more likely than the Midwest to use interbody devices (OR 2.42 and 1.66 respectively). The Southwest and Northeast were more likely than the Midwest to use autograft (OR 1.55 and 1.49). The Southwest, Northeast, and Southeast were less likely to use allograft than the Midwest (OR 0.408, 0.742, and 0.770). The Northeast was less likely and the Southeast more likely than the Midwest to utilize anterior cervical plating (OR 0.67 and 1.33). Surgical complications were more often associated with autograft compared to allograft (OR 1.61).
Conclusions
From 1999–2008, the number of orthopaedic surgeon candidates performing spine surgery has increased. These surgeons are performing more fusions, and utilizing more structural allografts, interbody devices and/or anterior cervical plates. Regional variations also remain in the type of constructs utilized.
doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318212bb61
PMCID: PMC3490631  PMID: 21301394
21.  Smartphone Apps for Orthopaedic Surgeons 
Background
The use of smartphones and their associated applications (apps) provides new opportunities for physicians, and specifically orthopaedic surgeons, to integrate technology into clinical practice.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was twofold: to review all apps specifically created for orthopaedic surgeons and to survey orthopaedic residents and surgeons in the United States to characterize the need for novel apps.
Methods
The five most popular smartphone app stores were searched for orthopaedic-related apps: Blackberry, iPhone, Android, Palm, and Windows. An Internet survey was sent to ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery departments to assess the level of smartphone use, app use, and desire for orthopaedic-related apps.
Results
The database search revealed that iPhone and Android platforms had apps specifically created for orthopaedic surgery with a total of 61 and 13 apps, respectively. Among the apps reviewed, only one had greater than 100 reviews (mean, 27), and the majority of apps had very few reviews, including AAOS Now and AO Surgery Reference, apps published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and AO Foundation, respectively. The national survey revealed that 84% of respondents (n = 476) have a smartphone, the majority (55%) have an iPhone, and that 53% of people with smartphones already use apps in clinical practice. Ninety-six percent of respondents who use apps reported they would like more orthopaedic apps and would pay an average of nearly $30 for useful apps. The four most requested categories of apps were textbook/reference, techniques/guides, OITE/board review, and billing/coding.
Conclusion
The use of smartphones and apps is prevalent among orthopaedic care providers in academic centers. However, few highly ranked apps specifically related to orthopaedic surgery are available, and the types of apps available do not appear to be the categories most desired by residents and surgeons.
doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1904-0
PMCID: PMC3111786  PMID: 21547414
22.  Orthopaedic Surgeon-hospital Alignment at Geisinger Health System 
Background
There is broad recognition that the healthcare crisis in the United States is going to require a response and change in clinical practice. The management structure of Geisinger Health System is unique, and this has the potential to change the dynamics of surgeon-administration alignment.
Questions/purposes
Our goal is to summarize and clarify the relationship between orthopaedic surgeons and the healthcare system at Geisinger, evaluate the positive and negative aspects, and consider which components may be reproducible.
Methods
This overview arises from a review of management publications, discussions with orthopaedic attendings and administrators, and personal observations and comparison with my previous 15-year university-based practice.
Results
The Geisinger Health System has always been physician-run. The overall efficiency and pragmatic approach found at Geisinger relies heavily on changing surgeon behavior to match what is optimal for the system rather than the individual. This approach appears to bring greater stability and more consistent outcomes, but only by removing what some see as the art of medicine and at the loss of perceived provider autonomy. Despite the rigid demands placed on the surgeon, the system remains adaptable to change and appears to retain faculty at a high rate.
Conclusions
The Geisinger System is unique in its ability to control an insurance plan, multiple hospitals, and a large physician group. Through clear protocols and behavioral pressure, it demands surgeon alignment with the system as a whole and in return provides a stable work environment. It is not ideal for all surgeons and it is unclear whether it can be reproduced in a less structured setting.
doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2903-0
PMCID: PMC3706674  PMID: 23479234
23.  Breakout Session: Diversity, Cultural Competence, and Patient Trust 
Background
The patient population served by orthopaedic surgeons is becoming increasingly more diverse, but this is not yet reflected in our workforce. As the cultural diversity of our patient population grows, we must be adept at communicating with patients of all backgrounds.
Where Are We Now?
Efforts to improve the diversity of our workforce have been successful in increasing the number of female residents, but there has been no improvement in the number of African American and Hispanic residents. There is currently no centralized effort to recruit minority and female students to the specialty of orthopaedic surgery. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has been leading workshops to train residents and practicing surgeons in communication skills and cultural competency.
Where Do We Need to Go?
We must train the current generation of orthopaedic surgeons to become adept at interacting with patients of all backgrounds. While initiatives for crosscultural communication in orthopaedic surgery have been established, they have not yet been universally incorporated into residency training and Continuing Medical Education programs.
How Do We Get There?
We must continue to recruit the brightest students of all backgrounds, with a concerted effort to provide equal opportunities for early guidance to all trainees. Opportunities to improve diversity among orthopaedic surgeons exist at many stages in a future physician’s career path, including “shadowing” in high school and college and continuing with mentorship in medical school. Additional resources should be dedicated to teaching residents about the immediate relevancy of cultural competency, and faculty should model these proficiencies during their patient interactions.
doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1771-8
PMCID: PMC3111788  PMID: 21264554
24.  Fractures of the Femur. End Results* 
Melvin Starkey Henderson was born in St. Paul, Minnesota and received his early schooling there and in Winnipeg, Manitoba [4]. He received his undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of Toronto. He then interned in the City and County Hospital in his home town of St. Paul, and in 1907 went to work as an assistant with the founders of the recently formed Mayo Clinic, William James and Charles Horace Mayo. To further his training and evidently at the suggestion of the Mayo brothers, in 1911 Dr. Henderson went abroad to work under Sir Robert Jones in Liverpool and then Sir Harold Stiles in Edinburgh. He returned to organize and direct the section of orthopaedic surgery at the Mayo Clinic and spent his entire professional career there.
Dr. Henderson was involved in many national and international organizations, and was a founder and first President of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons when it was established at the Kahler Hotel in Rochester, Minnesota, on June 5, 1934, after several previous organizational meetings [5]. Wickstrom [5], describing the organization of the Board, commented, “After all, in the opinion of the East coast establishment, Dr. Henderson (who was born in St. Paul, was educated in Canada, and had his beginning with the Mayo brothers as a clinical assistant riding a bicycle around Rochester, making house calls on the Mayo brothers’ patients) was a mere upstart.” However, at the time Dr. Henderson was 50 years old and had been President of the American Orthopaedic Association and Clinical Orthopaedic Society, as well as prominent in the American Medical Association and other organizations. Dr. Henderson was one of three of the first 15 AAOS Presidents (the other two being Drs. Philip D. Wilson and John C. Wilson, Sr.) who had a son who succeeded him as President. He was greatly respected for his organizational abilities, particularly at the Board, whose objectives were uncertain in the beginning and required sage guidance [5].
We reproduce here an article in which Dr. Henderson reviewed 222 consecutive cases of femur fractures, 165 of which had been referred late because of complications of fractures treated elsewhere (clearly, by 1921, the Mayo Clinic was a referral source for others) [2]. Followup could not have been easy at a time when patients often came from a distance and travel was difficult, but it was described when available and in 40 of the 57 recent fractures, Henderson reported 87.5% were “cured.” Of the 165 old fractures, he was able to trace 143 (87%), a remarkable figure even today. He reported 90% of the femoral neck fractures were cured by various sorts of nonsurgical (6 patients) or surgical reconstructive (39 patients) means; 85% of the femoral shaft fractures were cured by either nonoperative (29 patients) or operative (69 patients) means. While he did not use the sort of outcomes we use today (the earliest orthopaedic outcome instruments were not introduced for four more decades: by Carroll B. Larson in 1963 [3] and William H. Harris in 1969 [1]), we can only presume Henderson meant union was achieved when patients were “cured” since nonunion or malunion would not have likely produced good results. That being the case, his rate of union was remarkable and would be enviable today in these sometimes difficult situations, attesting to his understanding of the individual situations and his skills. Melvin S. Henderson, MD is shown. Photograph is reproduced with permission and ©American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Fifty Years of Progress, 1983.
References
Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty: an end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.Henderson MS. Fractures of the femur: end results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1921;3:520–528.Larson CB. Rating scale for hip disabilities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963;31:85–93.Mostofi SB. Who's Who in Orthopedics. London, UK: Springer; 2005.Wickstrom JK. Fifty years of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery: 1934. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:3–10.
doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0033-2
PMCID: PMC2505283  PMID: 18196372
25.  Developing a placebo-controlled trial in surgery: Issues of design, acceptability and feasibility 
Trials  2011;12:50.
Background
Surgical placebos are controversial. This in-depth study explored the design, acceptability, and feasibility issues relevant to designing a surgical placebo-controlled trial for the evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic lavage for the management of people with osteoarthritis of the knee in the UK.
Methods
Two surgeon focus groups at a UK national meeting for orthopaedic surgeons and one regional surgeon focus group (41 surgeons); plenary discussion at a UK national meeting for orthopaedic anaesthetists (130 anaesthetists); three focus groups with anaesthetists (one national, two regional; 58 anaesthetists); two focus groups with members of the patient organisation Arthritis Care (7 participants); telephone interviews with people on consultant waiting lists from two UK regional centres (15 participants); interviews with Chairs of UK ethics committees (6 individuals); postal surveys of members of the British Association of Surgeons of the Knee (382 surgeons) and members of the British Society of Orthopaedic Anaesthetists (398 anaesthetists); two centre pilot (49 patients assessed).
Results
There was widespread acceptance that evaluation of arthroscopic lavage had to be conducted with a placebo control if scientific rigour was not to be compromised. The choice of placebo surgical procedure (three small incisions) proved easier than the method of anaesthesia (general anaesthesia). General anaesthesia, while an excellent mimic, was more intrusive and raised concerns among some stakeholders and caused extensive discussion with local decision-makers when seeking formal approval for the pilot.
Patients were willing to participate in a pilot with a placebo arm; although some patients when allocated to surgery became apprehensive about the possibility of receiving placebo, and withdrew. Placebo surgery was undertaken successfully.
Conclusions
Our study illustrated the opposing and often strongly held opinions about surgical placebos, the ethical issues underpinning this controversy, and the challenges that exist even when ethics committee approval has been granted. It showed that a placebo-controlled trial could be conducted in principle, albeit with difficulty. It also highlighted that not only does a placebo-controlled trial in surgery have to be ethically and scientifically acceptable but that it also must be a feasible course of action. The place of placebo-controlled surgical trials more generally is likely to be limited and require specific circumstances to be met. Suggested criteria are presented.
Trial registration number
The trial was assigned ISRCTN02328576 through http://controlled-trials.com/ in June 2006. The first patient was randomised to the pilot in July 2007.
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-50
PMCID: PMC3052178  PMID: 21338481

Results 1-25 (617581)