Background Orthopaedic surgery training programs have lagged behind other surgical specialties in increasing their representation of women and people from under-represented minority (URM) groups. Comparative data between orthopaedic surgery and other specialties are needed to help identify solutions to closing the diversity gap. Questions/purposes (1) Which surgical specialties have the greatest representation of women residents and residents from URM groups? (2) How have the proportions of women residents and residents from URM groups changed across the surgical specialties during the past decade? Methods This was a retrospective evaluation of a large, longitudinally maintained survey database. Resident data by gender and ethnicity were retrieved from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Books for the 2011 to 2012 through 2019 to 2020 academic years. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education database is updated annually; thus, it is the most up-to-date and complete database available for gender and ethnicity data for all surgical residents. Data were obtained and analyzed for seven different surgical specialties: orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, general surgery, and urology. No sampling was necessary, and thus descriptive statistics of the data were completed. Because the entire population of residents was included for the period of time in question, no statistical comparisons were made, and the reported differences represent absolute differences between the groups for these periods. Linear regression analyses were performed to estimate the annual growth rates of women residents and residents from URM groups in each specialty. Results Among the seven surgical specialties, representation of women residents increased from 28% (4640 of 16,854) of residents in 2012 to 33% (6879 of 20,788) in 2020. Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest representation of women residents every year, with women residents comprising 16% of residents (700 of 4342) in 2020. Among the seven surgical specialties, representation of residents from URM groups increased from 8.1% (1362 of 16,854) in 2012 to 9.7% (2013 of 20,788) in 2020. In 2020, the representation of residents from URM groups in orthopaedic surgery was 7.7% (333 of 4342). In 2020, general surgery had the highest representation of women residents (42%; 3696 of 8809) as well as residents from URM groups (12%; 1065 of 8809). Plastic surgery (1.46% per year) and general surgery (0.95% per year) had larger annual growth rates of women residents than the other specialties did. In each surgical specialty, the annual growth rate of residents from URM groups was insignificant. Conclusion During the past decade, there was only a small increase in the representation of women in orthopaedic surgery, while the representation of people from URM groups did not change. In contrast, by 2020, general surgery had become the most diverse among the seven surgical specialties. To increase diversity in our field, we need to evaluate and implement some of the effective interventions that have helped general surgery become the diverse surgical specialty that it is today. Clinical Relevance General surgery has substantially reduced gender and ethnic disparities that existed in the past, while those in orthopaedic surgery still persist. General surgery residencies have implemented a holistic review of resident applications and longitudinal mentoring programs to successfully address these disparities. Orthopaedic surgery programs should consider placing less emphasis on United States Medical Licensing Examination score thresholds and more weight on applicants’ non-academic attributes, and put more efforts into targeted longitudinal mentorship programs, some of which should be led by non-minority faculty.
Study Design. Longitudinal Cohort Study. Objective. Determine 1-year patient-reported outcomes associated with preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative opioid dosages in patients undergoing elective spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Back pain is the most disabling condition worldwide and over half of patients presenting for spine surgery report using opioids. Preoperative dosage has been correlated with poor outcomes, but published studies have not assessed the relationship of both preoperative chronic opioids and opioid dosage with patient-reported outcomes. Methods. For patients undergoing elective spine surgery between 2010 and 2017, our prospective institutional spine registry data was linked to opioid prescription data collected from our state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program to analyze outcomes associated with preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative opioid dosage, while adjusting for confounders through multivariable regression analyses. Outcomes included 1-year meaningful improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. Additional outcomes included 1-year satisfaction, return to work, 90-day complications, and postoperative chronic opioid use. Results. Of 2128 patients included, preoperative chronic opioid therapy was identified in 21% and was associated with significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of not achieving meaningful improvements at 1-year in extremity pain (aOR:1.5 [1.2–2]), axial pain (aOR:1.7 [1.4–2.2]), function (aOR:1.7 [1.4–2.2]), and quality of life (aOR:1.4 [1.2–1.9]); dissatisfaction (aOR:1.7 [1.3–2.2]); 90-day complications (aOR:2.9 [1.7–4.9]); and postoperative chronic opioid use (aOR:15 [11.4–19.7]). High-preoperative opioid dosage was only associated with postoperative chronic opioid use (aOR:4.9 [3–7.9]). Conclusion. Patients treated with chronic opioids prior to spine surgery are significantly less likely to achieve meaningful improvements at 1-year in pain, function, and quality of life; and less likely to be satisfied at 1-year with higher odds of 90-day complications, regardless of dosage. Both preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative dosage are independently associated with postoperative chronic opioid use. Level of Evidence: 2
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Sarcopenia is a risk factor for medical complications following spine surgery. However, the role of sarcopenia as a risk factor for proximal junctional disease (PJD) remains undefined. This study evaluates whether sarcopenia is an independent predictor of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Methods: ASD patients who underwent thoracic spine to pelvis fusion with 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up were reviewed for development of PJK and PJD. Average psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative axial computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at L4 was recorded. Previously described PJD risk factors were assessed for each patient, and multivariate linear regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for PJK and PJF. Disease-specific thresholds were calculated for sarcopenia based on psoas cross-sectional area. Results: Of 32 patients, PJK and PJF occurred in 20 (62.5%) and 12 (37.5%), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated psoas cross-sectional area to be the most powerful independent predictor of PJK ( P = .02) and PJF ( P = .009). Setting ASD disease–specific psoas cross-sectional area thresholds of <12 cm2 in men and <8 cm2 in women resulted in a PJF rate of 69.2% for patients below these thresholds, relative to 15.8% for those above the thresholds. Conclusions: Sarcopenia is an independent, modifiable predictor of PJK and PJF, and is easily assessed on standard preoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Surgeons should include sarcopenia in preoperative risk assessment and consider added measures to avoid PJF in sarcopenic patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.