No abstract

Background The complex interrelationship among physical health, mental health, and social health has gained the attention of the medical community in recent years. Poor social health, also called social deprivation, has been linked to more disease and a more-negative impact from disease across a wide variety of health conditions. However, it remains unknown how social deprivation is related to physical and mental health in patients presenting for orthopaedic care. Questions/purposes (1) Do patients living in zip codes with higher social deprivation report lower levels of physical function and higher levels of pain interference, depression, and anxiety as measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) at initial presentation to an orthopaedic provider than those from less deprived areas; and if so, is this relationship independent of other potentially confounding factors such as age, sex, and race? (2) Does the relationship between the level of social deprivation of a patient’s community and that patient’s physical function, pain interference, depression, and anxiety, as measured by PROMIS remain consistent across all orthopaedic subspecialties? (3) Are there differences in the proportion of individuals from areas of high and low levels of social deprivation seen by the various orthopaedic subspecialties at one large, tertiary orthopaedic referral center? Methods This cross-sectional evaluation analyzed 7500 new adult patients presenting to an orthopaedic center between August 1, 2016 and December 15, 2016. Patients completed PROMIS Physical Function-v1.2, Pain Interference-v1.1, Depression-v1.0, and Anxiety-v1.0 Computer Adaptive Tests. The Area Deprivation Index, a composite measure of community-level social deprivation, based on multiple census metrics such as income, education level, and housing type for a given nine-digit zip code was used to estimate individual social deprivation. Statistical analysis determined the effect of disparate area deprivation (based on most- and least-deprived national quartiles) for the entire sample as well as for patients categorized by the orthopaedic subspecialty providing care. Comparisons of PROMIS scores among these groups were based on an MCID of 5 points for each PROMIS domain (Effect size 0.5). Results Patients living in zip codes with the highest levels of social deprivation had worse mean scores across all four PROMIS domains when compared with those living in the least-deprived quartile (physical function 38 +/- 9 versus 43 +/- 9, mean difference 4, 95% CI, 3.7–5.0; p < 0.001; pain interference 64 +/- 8 versus 60+/-8, mean difference -4, 95% CI, -4.8 to -3.7; p < 0.001; depression 50+/-11 versus 45+/-8, mean difference -5, 95% CI, -6.0 to -4.5; p < 0.001; anxiety 56+/-11 versus 50 +/-10, mean difference -6, 95% CI, -6.9 to -5.4; p < 0.001). There were no differences in physical function, pain interference, depression, or anxiety PROMIS scores between patients from the most- and least-deprived quartiles who presented to the subspecialties of spine (physical function, mean 35+/-7 versus 35+/-7; p = 0.872; pain interference, 67+/-7 versus 66+/-7; p = 0.562; depression, 54+/-12 versus 51 +/-10; p = 0.085; and anxiety, 60+/-11 versus 58 +/-9; p = 0.163), oncology (physical function, mean 33+/-9 versus 38 +/-13; p = 0.105; pain interference, 68+/-9 versus 64+/-10; p = 0.144; depression, 51+/-10 versus 52+/-13; p = 0.832; anxiety, 59+/-11 versus 59+/-10 p = 0.947); and trauma (physical function, 35+/-11 versus 32+/-10; p = 0.268; pain interference, 66+/-7 versus 67+/-6; p = 0.566; depression, 52+/-12 versus 53+/-11; p = 0.637; and anxiety, 59+/-12 versus 60+/-9 versus; p = 0.800). The social deprivation-based differences in all PROMIS domains remained for the subspecialties of foot/ankle, where mean differences ranged from 3 to 6 points on the PROMIS domains (p < 0.001 for all four domains), joint reconstruction where mean differences ranged from 4 to 7 points on the PROMIS domains (p < 0.001 for all four domains), sports medicine where mean differences in PROMIS scores ranged from 3 to 5 between quartiles (p < 0.001 for all four domains), and finally upper extremity where mean differences in PROMIS scores between the most- and least-deprived quartiles were five points for each PROMIS domain (p < 0.001 for all four domains). The proportion of individuals from the most- and least-deprived quartiles was distinct when looking across all seven subspecialty categories; only 11% of patients presenting to sports medicine providers and 17% of patients presenting to upper extremity providers were from the most-deprived quartile, while 39% of trauma patients were from the most-deprived quartile (p < 0.001). Conclusions Orthopaedic patients must be considered within the context of their social environment because it influences patient-reported physical and mental health as well as has potential implications for treatment and prognosis. Social deprivation may need to be considered when using patient-reported outcomes to judge the value of care delivered between practices or across specialties. Further studies should examine potential interventions to improve the perceived health of patients residing in communities with greater social deprivation and to determine how social health influences ultimate orthopaedic treatment outcomes. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Background The evolution of

No abstract

Background: Orthopaedic surgery has generally lagged behind other surgical subspecialties with respect to racial and ethnic diversity in its U.S. residency programs. Efforts have been made to increase the number of underrepresented minorities (URMs) applying to orthopaedic surgery residencies; however, the impact on diversity at the residency program level is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether orthopaedic surgery residency programs have become more racially diverse over time. Methods: The Graduate Medical Education Track database was queried for individual racial/ethnic identification of orthopaedic surgery residents in U.S. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited programs for 15 consecutive years (2002-2003 through 2016-2017). The number of URMs in each residency program during each academic year was recorded. The number of programs per year with no URMs, 1 URM, 2 URMs, and >2 URMs was recorded, and the change over time was assessed. Results: The number of programs per year with >1 URM resident decreased over time, from 61 programs in 2002 to 53 programs in 2016, with the trough being 31 programs in 2010 (p < 0.0001). The number of programs per year without any URM residents increased over the period of study, from 40 programs in 2002 to 60 programs in 2016, with the peak being 76 programs in 2011 (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The number of residency programs with >1 URM resident has decreased significantly over time, suggesting that diversity at the program level is limited. Program-level diversity should be further examined as a potential barrier to the recruitment of URMs to orthopaedics. Difficulty attracting URM residents to certain programs may have the unintended consequence of effectively limiting potential positions for these candidates, which can decrease the odds of minority students matching into orthopaedics and, therefore, perpetuate the cycle of lack of diversity in our field. Orthopaedic surgery in the United States lags behind other specialties with respect to racial and ethnic diversity among both residents and academic faculty 1-3. Minorities have been underrepresented in orthopaedics relative to the number of medical students who are underrepresented minorities (URMs) 1,4. In 2006, African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos represented 13.8% of medical school graduates but only 7.8% of orthopaedic surgery residents and 4.9% of orthopaedic surgery faculty 1. Previously, it has been demonstrated that the proportion of minority residents in orthopaedics did not significantly increase over time, with African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans constituting 8.8% of orthopaedic residents in 1995 and 9.1% of residents in 2010 2. Disclosure: The authors indicated that no external funding was received for any aspect of this work. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked "yes" to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relat...

Although this study was small, these results suggest that further studies are needed to determine the roles that vascular graft selection and venous reconstruction play in clinical outcome.

Background Multiple clinical trials have shown that arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis is not efficacious. It is unclear how these studies have affected orthopaedic practice in the USA. Questions/purposes We questioned whether, in the Veterans Health Administration system, rates of knee arthroscopy in patients with osteoarthritis have changed after publication of the initial clinical trial by Moseley et al. in 2002, and whether rates of arthroplasty within 2 years of arthroscopy have changed during the same period.Methods Patients 50 years and older with knee osteoarthritis who underwent arthroscopy between 1998 and 2010 were retrospectively identified and an annual arthroscopy rate was calculated from 1998 through 2002 and from 2006 through 2010. Patients who underwent knee arthroplasty within 2 years of arthroscopy during each period were identified, and a 2-year conversion to arthroplasty rate was calculated. Results Between 1998 and 2002, the annual arthroscopy rate decreased from 4% to 3%. Of these arthroscopies, 4% were converted to arthroplasty within 2 years. Between 2006 and 2010, the annual arthroscopy rate increased from 3% to 4%. Of these arthroscopies, 5% were converted to arthroplasty within 2 years. Conclusions Rates of arthroscopy in patients with knee osteoarthritis and conversion to arthroplasty within 2 years have not decreased with time. It may be that evidence alone is not sufficient to alter practice patterns or that arthroscopy rates for arthritis for patients in the Veterans Health Administration system were already so low that the results of the initial clinical trial had no substantial effect. Level of Evidence Level III, Retrospective cohort study.

Adjusting for hospital volume does not alter the risk of readmissions and ED use associated with minority race/ethnicity, suggesting that hospital volume alone may be insufficient to explain racial differences in outcome.