Big Data, Big Problems: Incorporating Mission, Values, and Culture in Provider Affiliations

Data for orthopaedic surgeons - A review

As we step into a technology powered era, where information is available everywhere, managing data forms an important part of professional and everyday life. With developments like online databases, high definition videos and images, social media, robotics, explosion of academic publications, telecommunication, artificial intelligence and internet of things, there is a variable amount of data that the orthopaedic surgeon is exposed to and has to deal with on a regular basis. It is imperative that the surgeon has a basic working knowledge on data and its applications in relation to the field of orthopaedic surgery. This review introduces the surgeon to data and its types, its sources, collection, Electronic Medical Records (EMR), management after collection, Big data and legal issues related to data. Data generators from megabytes to yottabytes are discussed along with options for their storage and analysis. Knowledge on the types of data is important to decide on the type of statistical tests that may be used on them, for the options available for storage, analysis and legal issues. We discuss the different types of data, computer and cloud-based systems of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) with their advantages and disadvantages as well as the differences between conventional and EMRs. Management of data after collection is discussed including storage and backup, archiving and sharing, organizing, tracking changes and analysis. High resolution images, videos, robotics and analytics are powering demand and production of data in Trauma and Orthopaedics. Issues like copyright, Privacy, security, encryption and legal issues related to data are highlighted as these are important as more and more data is being used online and involve issues of privacy and security. We also take a look into the future of data in orthopaedics as digitization of the world is occurring at a rapid pace.

Clinical Outcome Reporting in Youth ACL Literature Is Widely Variable

Background:

Advances in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction procedures in pediatric and adolescent patients have resulted in an increase in recent clinical studies on this topic. However, the consistency with which outcome measures are reported in this demographic is unknown.

Purpose:

To document outcome reporting patterns of youth ACL reconstruction studies in high-impact journals.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

All articles published in 5 high-impact orthopaedic journals from 2010 to 2016 were reviewed to identify those reporting clinical outcomes of young patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Studies that were nonclinical, reported on patients older than 18 years, or included fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Outcome measures used in all included studies were recorded.

Results:

Seventeen studies encompassing 772 subjects (mean age, 14.3 years; range, 6.3-18.0 years) were analyzed. Eight studies (47%) reported on Tanner stage of subjects, while 1 study reported skeletal age. Ten studies (59%) clearly documented the presence or absence of surgical complications. Range of motion was reported in 65% of studies. Leg-length discrepancy and angular deformity were each reported in 76% of studies, with 12% quantifying results through radiographic measurements. Ligament testing was variably defined by inclusion of instrumented testing (65%), Lachman test (53%), and pivot-shift test (53%). Fourteen studies (82%) explicitly reported on the rate of ACL rerupture, while 71% reported on the rate of revision surgery. Rate of return to preinjury activity was reported in 8 studies (47%), of which 2 defined criteria for return to sport and 3 defined the level of competitive sport. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used variably. For the 3 most commonly reported PROMs (Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Tegner), 24% of studies reported all 3 PROMs, 35% of studies reported 2 PROMs, and 6% of studies reported 1 PROM in isolation. A pediatric-specific PROM was reported in 1 of the 17 studies.

Conclusion:

Studies on pediatric ACL reconstruction published in high-impact journals unreliably defined subjects’ skeletal maturity, inconsistently reported on objective outcome measures, and used disparate adult-validated PROMs to assess subjective outcomes. These findings highlight the need for standardized, pediatric-specific outcome measures to be applied in future studies evaluating ACL reconstruction in children and adolescents.