PurposeThis systematic review and meta‐analysis analyzed the influence of pre‐operative intra‐articular injections (IAI) on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MethodsStudies published between January 1st, 2000 and May 1st, 2021 evaluating PJI rates among TKA patients with and without IAI were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO Host, and Google Scholar. The pooled effect of IAI on PJI risk was calculated utilizing Mantel–Haenszel (M–H) models. Sub‐analysis comparisons were conducted based on the interval from IAI to TKA: 0–3 months; > 3–6 months; > 6–12 months. The Methodological Index for Non‐Randomized Studies (MINORS) and the Risk of Bias in Non‐randomized Studies‐of Interventions (ROBINS‐I) tool were utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study. ResultsThe present analysis included 12 studies reporting on 349,605 TKAs (IAI: n = 115,122; No IAI: n = 234,483). Patients receiving an IAI at any point prior to TKA (2850/115,122; 2.48%) had statistically significant increased risk of infection compared to patients not receiving IAIs (4479/234,483; 1.91%; OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08–1.20; p < 0.0001). However, this finding was not demonstrated across sensitivity analyses. Receiving injections within 3 months prior to TKA was associated with increased infection risk (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.14–1.31; p < 0.0001). There were no differences in infection rates when injections were given between > 3 and 6 months (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.47–1.43; p = 0.49) and > 6–12 months prior to TKA (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.89–1.78; p = 0.18). ConclusionsBased on the current literature, the findings of this analysis suggest that patients receiving IAI should wait at least 3 months before undergoing TKA to mitigate infection risk. Orthopaedic surgeons and patients can utilize this information when undergoing shared decision‐making regarding osteoarthritis management options and timing. Level of evidenceLevel III.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Inequalities involving women across orthopaedic subspecialties continue to be highlighted in the literature. Previous analyses exploring reimbursement differences between sexes have not controlled for confounding factors or have been limited by small sample sizes. Our study used Medicare data on a national sample of orthopaedic surgeons to better evaluate these disparities. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Using each provider's National Provider Identifier number, this data set was linked to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System downloadable file and the 2019 National Provider Compare Database. Mean differences were calculated using the Welch t-test. Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of sex on total Medicare payments per physician, controlling for years in practice, practice diversity, clinical productivity, and subspecialty. Results: Nineteen thousand six orthopaedic surgeons were included in our analysis. Of these providers, 1,058 were female (5.6%) and 17,948 were male (94.4%). Male orthopaedic surgeons billed an average of 19.40 unique billing codes per provider and female orthopaedic surgeons billed 14.4 per provider (P < 0.001). Female orthopaedic surgeons billed an average of 1,245.5 services per physician while male orthopaedic surgeons billed 2,360.7 services per physician. The mean difference in payment between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was $59,748.7 (P < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression showed that female sex was a significant predictor of lower total yearly Medicare reimbursement (P < 0.001). Discussion: These findings emphasize the need for additional efforts to help ensure reimbursement differences do not deter women from pursuing orthopaedics. Healthcare organizations should use this information to ensure equal salary negotiating power among their employees while additionally addressing potential biases and misconceptions related to referrals and surgeon aptitude, respectively.

No abstract

Background Serving as a principal investigator for a clinical trial can bring national visibility and recognition to physicians, and it can have a substantial impact on their promotion and tenure. In the field of orthopaedics, there is a well-known gender gap in terms of representation and leadership. Examining the representation of women in clinical trial leadership may help to inform and enable the design of targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership. Questions/purposes (1) What is the proportion of women principal investigators in orthopaedic clinical trials, and has this changed over time? (2) Are there trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) associated with women principal investigators? (3) What is the geographic distribution globally and regionally within the United States of clinical trials led by women principal investigators? Methods A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials using the ClinialTrials.gov registry and results database provided by the NIH was performed on August 22, 2022. Trial characteristics included principal investigator names and gender, trial phase, type, funding source, intervention, and location (defined by continent and US Census region). Our primary outcome was the overall proportion of women orthopaedic principal investigators over time. We assessed this by comparing the proportion of women principal investigators from 2007 to 2022. Our secondary outcomes were trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) and geographic distribution (globally and within the United States) associated with women principal investigators. Baseline characteristics of the clinical trials were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Fisher exact tests were conducted to evaluate differences in gender proportions based on the included clinical trial characteristics. Univariate linear regression was applied to analyze trends in the annual proportion of women principal investigators over time. Results The overall proportion of women principal investigators was 18% (592 of 3246), and this proportion increased over the study period. Specifically, the proportion of women leading clinical trials was 13% (16 of 121) in 2007 and 22% (53 of 242) in 2022 (r2 = 0.68; p < 0.001). This trend was also observed when evaluating only US women principal investigators (r2 = 0.47; p = 0.003) and non-US women principal investigators over the study period (r2 = 0.298; p = 0.03). There was no difference in the distribution of trial phases between men and women principal investigators. Most men and women were involved in “not applicable” or Phase IV trials. Similarly, there was no difference in trial status or funding source. However, women principal investigators had a higher proportion of studies involving behavioral interventions (11% [67 of 592]) compared with men principal investigators (3% [74 of 2654]; p = 0.03). The proportion of women principal investigators over the study period by world region revealed a higher proportion of women principal investigators in Asia (23% [88 of 391]), followed by South America (24% [12 of 49]), North America (18% [306 of 1746]), and Europe (16% [136 of 833]). Among all US trials over the study period, the proportion of women principal investigators across the US Census region was Northeast (19% [62 of 329]), South (18% [90 of 488]), West (20% [97 of 492]), and Midwest (13% [22 of 168]). Conclusion Although there has been a notable increase in the proportion of women principal investigators over time, the overall representation remains relatively low. The disparities observed in trial characteristics and geographic distribution of women principal investigators further emphasize the need for targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership. Clinical Relevance These results underscore the importance of adopting practices and strategies that foster gender equity in the leadership of orthopaedic clinical trials. By establishing mentorship and sponsorship programs, early-career women surgeons can be connected with experienced leaders, cultivating a supportive network and offering valuable career guidance. Additionally, addressing geographic disparities in the representation of women principal investigators can involve the implementation of mentorship and sponsorship programs in regions with lower representation.

No abstract

No abstract