Research During Orthopaedic Training

How Research Improves Clinical Care: The Case for Orthopaedic Surgeon Research Leadership and Collaboration: AOA Critical Issues Symposium

ABSTRACT

Improving the performance and impact of orthopaedic research is a critical leadership challenge. Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are a leading cause of disability worldwide, for which research investment and performance lags far behind the burden of disease. In the United States, MSK disorders account for the highest health care costs, have increased in incidence at the fastest rate, and exceed the combined costs of cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms. Despite the cost to society, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), with primary responsibility for MSK research, receives <1.4% of the funds allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Although orthopaedic surgeons are leading providers of MSK clinical care, the dearth of orthopaedic clinician-scientists also greatly reduces representation of MSK scientific and clinical expertise among academic and scientific leaders. The goals of this symposium were to highlight the critical need for greater prioritization and investment in orthopaedic research and to engage orthopaedic leaders in addressing these needs. Compelling stories of research success from 3 orthopaedic chairs were featured to highlight how orthopaedic surgeon leadership in bench-to-bedside research substantially advances MSK clinical care. Seminar participants also emphasized the need to improve evidence-based clinical practice for which multicenter prospective cohort and registry studies represent opportunities for broader involvement. Prioritization of orthopaedic clinician-scientist development and formation of multidisciplinary partnerships with basic and translational scientists were emphasized as critical needs to advance MSK health. It is critical for orthopaedic chairs to "be invested in" and to "invest in" the success of orthopaedic research. This investment includes developing a professional climate that values research achievement and collaboration as well as implementing strategies to support and sustain research success. Finally, orthopaedic leaders need to advocate for federal research funding to be proportional to the economic burden of disease for which MSK conditions carry the highest current and projected costs. With health-care costs accounting for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy, increasing the investment in orthopaedic research to reduce the prevalence, disability, and morbidity from MSK disease needs to be a top orthopaedic and national leadership priority.

Academic career outcomes of Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation resident grant recipients

The Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) awards resident research grants to orthopedic surgery residents. Outcomes are lacking for OREF resident grant recipients including academic career choice and scholarly productivity. This was a retrospective cohort study of OREF resident grant recipients (2012-2020). The percentage of OREF resident grant recipients selecting an academic career was compared with the percentage of academic orthopedic surgeons in the United States via a χ² test. Two hundred and seventy-six OREF resident grants were issued to 272 orthopedic surgery residents at 73 programs. OREF resident grant recipients were predominantly male (79.0%) and Caucasian (70.2%). OREF resident grant recipients had greater women representation than the national cohort of orthopedic surgery residents (21.0% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.030) with similar proportions of underrepresented racial minorities (29.8% vs. 27.2%, p = 0.351). OREF resident grants consisted of clinical (69.6%) and basic/translational science (30.4%) research and were awarded mostly for sports medicine (25.4%), trauma (18.8%), and adult reconstruction (15.9%) topics. The average h-index was 8.5 ± 9.2 resulting from 29.5 ± 51.2 manuscripts. The majority of OREF resident grant recipients selected an academic career, which was higher than the national benchmark of academic orthopedic surgeons (63.8% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). Two OREF resident grant recipients transitioned to National Institutes of Health research funding (0.7%). Multivariable logistical regression demonstrated two independent characteristics associated with pursuit of a future academic career: female sex (p = 0.042) and higher h-index values (p = 0.002). Procurement of OREF resident grants is associated with pursuit of an academic career. Clinical significance: There is great interest in fostering the next generation of orthopedic surgeon scientists. Results from this study demonstrate the association between receipt of an OREF resident research grant and pursuit of a future career in academic orthopedic surgery.

Benefits of an Orthopedic Education Research Collaborative: An Innovative Approach

Background Graduate Medical Education (GME) research in orthopedic surgery is an important but underrepresented subject in the medical literature. It was unknown if orthopedic residency leaders were interested in a surgical education research collaborative (orthopedic collaborative). The objectives of this study were to assess the potential benefit of an orthopedic collaborative from orthopedic residency leaders and investigate the factors associated with the support of a research collaborative within a surgical subspecialty. Methodology An anonymous 19-question survey-based study was distributed through REDCap (Nashville, TN, USA) to orthopedic residency leaders in the United States, from July to October 2020. The main outcome was perceived benefit. Additional aspects included program characteristics, challenges in performing resident education research, and organizational issues such as authorship, frequency of study requests, and governance. Results Almost all orthopedic faculty leadership (99%, 73/74) stated that resident education and faculty development research projects would benefit from an orthopedic education research collaborative. In comparison to unsupportive respondents, younger age (P = 0.006), 15 or fewer years in practice (P = 0.04), and having 0 to 100 peer-reviewed publications (P = 0.047) were associated with support for an orthopedic collaborative. Conclusions Challenges related to survey-based study quality and generalizability at single institutions can benefit from multi-institutional collaboration to develop high-quality studies that capture a representative sample to support orthopedic surgery program development.