Background

The Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) is the leading specialty-specific nongovernmental organization providing orthopaedic funding in the United States. As extramural research funding has become increasingly difficult to acquire, one mission of the OREF is to support investigators to generate data needed to secure larger extramural funding from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the rate of translating OREF faculty-level grants into subsequent NIH funding and to determine if there are identifiable factors that increase the rate of converting an OREF grant into NIH funding.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of OREF grants awarded to full-time faculty orthopaedic surgeons between 1994 and 2014. Grants were analyzed on the basis of award type and were categorized as basic science, clinical, or epidemiological. Sex, individual scholarly productivity, and publication experience were evaluated. All awardees were assessed for subsequent NIH funding using the NIH RePORTER web site.

Results

One hundred and twenty-six faculty-level OREF grants were awarded to 121 individuals. Twenty-seven OREF grant awardees (22%) received NIH funding at a mean of 6.3 years after OREF funding. Nineteen (46%) of 41 Career Development Grant winners later received NIH funding compared with 10 (12%) of 85 other award winners. OREF grants for basic science projects were awarded more often (58%) and were more than 4 times as likely to result in NIH funding than non-basic science projects (odds ratio, 4.70 [95% confidence interval, 1.66 to 13.33]; p = 0.0036). Faculty who later received NIH funding had higher scholarly productivity and publication experience (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The OREF grant awardee conversion rate of 22% and, particularly, the 46% for Career Development Grant winners compares favorably with the overall NIH funding success rate (18% in 2014). Faculty-level OREF grants appear to achieve their purpose of identifying and supporting researchers who aim to secure subsequent federal funding.

Clinical relevance

The goal of this study is to examine how successful faculty who have obtained OREF grants have been in securing NIH funding later in their careers. Although subsequent accrual of NIH funding is not the only goal of OREF funding, it can be used as an important benchmark to assess the development of orthopaedic clinician-scientists.

Background

The Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) is the leading specialty-specific nongovernmental organization providing orthopaedic funding in the United States. As extramural research funding has become increasingly difficult to acquire, one mission of the OREF is to support investigators to generate data needed to secure larger extramural funding from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the rate of translating OREF faculty-level grants into subsequent NIH funding and to determine if there are identifiable factors that increase the rate of converting an OREF grant into NIH funding.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of OREF grants awarded to full-time faculty orthopaedic surgeons between 1994 and 2014. Grants were analyzed on the basis of award type and were categorized as basic science, clinical, or epidemiological. Sex, individual scholarly productivity, and publication experience were evaluated. All awardees were assessed for subsequent NIH funding using the NIH RePORTER web site.

Results

One hundred and twenty-six faculty-level OREF grants were awarded to 121 individuals. Twenty-seven OREF grant awardees (22%) received NIH funding at a mean of 6.3 years after OREF funding. Nineteen (46%) of 41 Career Development Grant winners later received NIH funding compared with 10 (12%) of 85 other award winners. OREF grants for basic science projects were awarded more often (58%) and were more than 4 times as likely to result in NIH funding than non-basic science projects (odds ratio, 4.70 [95% confidence interval, 1.66 to 13.33]; p = 0.0036). Faculty who later received NIH funding had higher scholarly productivity and publication experience (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The OREF grant awardee conversion rate of 22% and, particularly, the 46% for Career Development Grant winners compares favorably with the overall NIH funding success rate (18% in 2014). Faculty-level OREF grants appear to achieve their purpose of identifying and supporting researchers who aim to secure subsequent federal funding.

Clinical relevance

The goal of this study is to examine how successful faculty who have obtained OREF grants have been in securing NIH funding later in their careers. Although subsequent accrual of NIH funding is not the only goal of OREF funding, it can be used as an important benchmark to assess the development of orthopaedic clinician-scientists.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a difficult complication requiring a comprehensive eradication protocol. Cure rates have essentially stalled in the last two decades, using methods of antimicrobial cement joint spacers and parenteral antimicrobial agents. Functional spacers with higher-dose antimicrobial-loaded cement and antimicrobial-loaded calcium sulphate beads have emphasized local antimicrobial delivery on the premise that high-dose local antimicrobial delivery will enhance eradication. However, with increasing antimicrobial pressures, microbiota have responded with adaptive mechanisms beyond traditional antimicrobial resistance genes. In this review we describe adaptive resistance mechanisms that are relevant to the treatment of PJI. Some mechanisms are well known, but others are new. The objective of this review is to inform clinicians of the known adaptive resistance mechanisms of microbes relevant to PJI. We also discuss the implications of these adaptive mechanisms in the future treatment of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):575-580.

BACKGROUND: According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Standards of Professionalism, the responsible testimony of expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits is important to the public interest. However, these expert witnesses are recruited and compensated without established standards, and their testimony can potentially sway court opinion, with substantial consequences. The objective of this study was to characterize defense and plaintiff expert orthopaedic surgeon witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation. METHODS: Utilizing the WestlawNext legal database, defense and plaintiff expert witnesses involved in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits from 2013 to 2017 were identified. Each witnesss subspecialty, mean years of experience, involvement in academic or private practice, fellowship training, and scholarly impact, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index), were determined through a query of professional profiles, the Scopus database, and a PubMed search. Statistical comparisons were made for each parameter among defense and plaintiff expert witnesses. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2017, 306 expert medical witnesses for orthopaedic cases were identified; 174 (56.9%) testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and 132 (43.1%) testified on behalf of the defense. Orthopaedic surgeons who identified themselves as general orthopaedists comprised the largest share of expert witnesses on both the plaintiff (n = 61) and defense (n = 25) sides. The plaintiff witnesses averaged 36 years of experience versus 31 years for the defense witnesses (p < 0.001); 26% of the plaintiff witnesses held an academic position versus 43% of the defense witnesses (p = 0.013). Defense witnesses exhibited a higher proportion of fellowship training in comparison to plaintiff expert witnesses (80.5% versus 64.5%, respectively, p = 0.003). The h-index for the plaintiff group was 6.6 versus 9.1 for the defense group (p = 0.04). Two witnesses testified for both the plaintiff and defense sides. CONCLUSIONS: Defense expert witnesses held higher rates of academic appointments and exhibited greater scholarly impact than their plaintiff counterparts, with both sides averaging >30 years of experience. These data collectively show that there are differences in characteristics between plaintiff and defense witnesses. Additional study is needed to illuminate the etiology of these differences.

Preclinical in vitro and in vivo methods to study bacterial interactions with dermal fillers and infection pathogenesis are lacking. In this work, first in vitro methods to assess protein biofouling and effective pore size of commercial dermal fillers, including degradable hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers and other semi-degradable or permanent fillers (non-HA), were developed. The results were then related to Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) adhesion rates in vitro. HA fillers had less protein sorption than non-HA fillers and overall had smaller effective pore sizes. The properties correlated with levels of bacterial adhesion, where the control glass surface had the most rapid increase in bacterial cell adhesion, with a slope of 0.29 cm^-2  min^-1 , three unique non-HA fillers had intermediate adhesion with slopes of 0.11 and 0.06 cm^-2  min^-1 , and three unique HA fillers had the least adhesion with slopes of 0.02, 0.02, and 0.01 cm^-2  min^-1 . S. aureus had greater motility on the HA fillers than on non-HA fillers. Next, a mouse model for dermal filler biofilm and infection was developed. Mice were inoculated with a controlled amount of bioluminescent bacteria (Xen36 S. aureus) and polyacrylamide hydrogels of different stiffness were injected. In vivo bioluminescence was monitored longitudinally for 35 days to ensure that lasting colonization was established. The inoculum was optimized to achieve adequate bioluminescent signal, and bacterial bioburden over time and inter-animal variability in bioburden were determined. These in vitro and in vivo approaches can be used for future studies of antimicrobial interventions for dermal fillers.

Study design

A controlled, interventional animal study.

Objective

Spinal implant infection (SII) is a devastating complication. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel implant coating that has both a passive antibiotic elution and an active-release mechanism triggered in the presence of bacteria, using an in vivo mouse model of SII.

Summary of background data

Current methods to minimize the frequency of SII include local antibiotic therapy (vancomycin powder), betadine irrigation, silver nanoparticles, and passive release from antibiotic-loaded poly(methyl methacrylate) cement beads, all of which have notable weaknesses. A novel implant coating has been developed to address some of these limitations but has not been tested in the environment of a SII.

Methods

A biodegradable coating using branched poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(propylene sulfide) (PEG-PPS) polymer was designed to deliver antibiotics. The in vivo performance of this coating was tested in the delivery of either vancomycin or tigecycline in a previously established mouse model of SII. Noninvasive bioluminescence imaging was used to quantify the bacterial burden, and implant sonication was used to determine bacterial colony-forming units (CFUs) from the implant and surrounding bone and soft tissue.

Results

The PEG-PPS-vancomycin coating significantly lowered the infection burden from postoperative day 3 onwards (P < 0.05), whereas PEG-PPS-tigecycline only decreased the infection on postoperative day 5 to 10 (P < 0.05). CFUs were lower on PEG-PPS-vancomycin pins than PEG-PPS-tigecycline and PEG-PPS pins alone on both the implants (2.4 × 10, 8.5 × 10, and 1.0 × 10 CFUs, respectively) and surrounding bone and soft tissue (1.3 × 10, 4.8 × 10, and 5.4 × 10 CFUs, respectively) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The biodegradable PEG-PPS coating demonstrates promise in decreasing bacterial burden and preventing SII. The vancomycin coating outperformed the tigecycline coating in this model compared to prior work in arthroplasty models, highlighting the uniqueness of the paraspinal infection microenvironment.

Level of evidence

N/A.

Background

According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Standards of Professionalism, the responsible testimony of expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits is important to the public interest. However, these expert witnesses are recruited and compensated without established standards, and their testimony can potentially sway court opinion, with substantial consequences. The objective of this study was to characterize defense and plaintiff expert orthopaedic surgeon witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation.

Methods

Utilizing the WestlawNext legal database, defense and plaintiff expert witnesses involved in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits from 2013 to 2017 were identified. Each witness's subspecialty, mean years of experience, involvement in academic or private practice, fellowship training, and scholarly impact, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index), were determined through a query of professional profiles, the Scopus database, and a PubMed search. Statistical comparisons were made for each parameter among defense and plaintiff expert witnesses.

Results

Between 2013 and 2017, 306 expert medical witnesses for orthopaedic cases were identified; 174 (56.9%) testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and 132 (43.1%) testified on behalf of the defense. Orthopaedic surgeons who identified themselves as general orthopaedists comprised the largest share of expert witnesses on both the plaintiff (n = 61) and defense (n = 25) sides. The plaintiff witnesses averaged 36 years of experience versus 31 years for the defense witnesses (p < 0.001); 26% of the plaintiff witnesses held an academic position versus 43% of the defense witnesses (p = 0.013). Defense witnesses exhibited a higher proportion of fellowship training in comparison to plaintiff expert witnesses (80.5% versus 64.5%, respectively, p = 0.003). The h-index for the plaintiff group was 6.6 versus 9.1 for the defense group (p = 0.04). Two witnesses testified for both the plaintiff and defense sides.

Conclusions

Defense expert witnesses held higher rates of academic appointments and exhibited greater scholarly impact than their plaintiff counterparts, with both sides averaging >30 years of experience. These data collectively show that there are differences in characteristics between plaintiff and defense witnesses. Additional study is needed to illuminate the etiology of these differences.

Background and objectives

Given advances in therapies, endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) in metastatic bone disease (MBD) may be increasingly indicated. The objectives were to review the indications, and implant and patient survivorship in patients undergoing EPR for MBD.

Methods

A review of patients undergoing EPR for extremity MBD between 1992 and 2022 at two centers was performed. Surgical data, implant survival, patient survival, and implant failure modes were examined.

Results

One hundred fifteen patients were included with a median follow-up of 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2-19.3) and survival of 19.4 months (95% CI: 13.6-26.1). The most common diagnosis was renal cell carcinoma (34/115, 29.6%) and the most common location was proximal femur (43/115, 37.4%). Indications included: actualized fracture (58/115, 50.4%), impending fracture (30/115, 26.1%), and failed fixation (27/115, 23.5%). Implant failure was uncommon (10/115, 8.7%). Patients undergoing EPR for failed fixation were more likely to have renal or lung cancer (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

EPRs were performed most frequently for renal cell carcinoma and in patients with a relatively favorable survival. EPR was indicated for failed previous fixation in 23.5% of cases, emphasizing the importance of predictive survival modeling. EPR can be a reliable and durable surgical option for patients with MBD.

Background

Despite recent advances, infection remains the most common etiology of arthroplasty failure. Recent work suggests that 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) deficiency correlates with the frequency of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We endeavored to examine whether 25D3 deficiency leads to increased bacterial burden in vivo in an established mouse model of PJI and, if so, whether this effect can be reversed by preoperative 25D3 supplementation.

Methods

Mice (lys-EGFP) possessing fluorescent neutrophils were fed a vitamin D3-sufficient (n = 20) or deficient (n = 40) diet for 6 weeks. A group of 25D3-deficient mice (n = 20) were "rescued" with 1 intraperitoneal dose of 25D3 at 3 days before surgery. A stainless steel implant was inserted into the knee joint and the joint space was inoculated with bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus (1 × 10 colony forming units [CFUs]). In vivo imaging was used to monitor bacterial burden and neutrophil infiltration. Blood was drawn to confirm 25D3 levels 3 days before surgery and on postoperative days (PODs) 0 and 14. Mice were killed at POD 21, and CFUs were quantified after culture. Myeloperoxidase (MPO) and β-N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG) were assayed to look at neutrophil infiltration and activated tissue macrophage recruitment, respectively.

Results

Serum values confirmed 25D3 deficiency and repletion of the 25D3-rescued group. Bacterial bioluminescence and neutrophil fluorescence were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the 25D3-deficient group. CFU counts from the joint tissue and implant were also significantly greater in this group (p < 0.05). Rescue treatment significantly decreased bacterial burden and neutrophil infiltration (p < 0.05). Compared with the 25D3-sufficient and 25D3-rescued groups, MPO activity was higher (p < 0.02) and NAG activity was lower (p < 0.03) in the 25D3-deficient group.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated in vivo in a mouse model of PJI that (1) 25D3 deficiency results in increased bacterial burden and neutrophil infiltration, and (2) this effect can be reversed with preoperative repletion of 25D3.

Clinical relevance

Considering that >65% of patients undergoing arthroplasty have insufficient or low levels of total 25D and that 25D levels can be replenished with ease using a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, oral 25D3 product, 25D deficiency may be an important modifiable risk factor in humans undergoing joint replacement.

Background

Intrawound vancomycin powder (VP) has been rapidly adopted in spine surgery with apparent benefit demonstrated in limited, retrospective studies. Randomized trials, basic science, and dose response studies are scarce.

Purpose

This study aims to test the efficacy and dose effect of VP over an extended time course within a randomized, controlled in vivo animal experiment.

Study design/setting

Randomized controlled experiment utilizing a mouse model of spine implant infection with treatment groups receiving vancomycin powder following bacterial inoculation.

Methods

Utilizing a mouse model of spine implant infection with bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus, 24 mice were randomized into 3 groups: 10 infected mice with VP treatment (+VP), 10 infected mice without VP treatment (No-VP), and 4 sterile controls (SC). Four milligrams of VP (mouse equivalent of 1 g in a human) were administered before wound closure. Bioluminescence imaging was performed over 5 weeks to quantify bacterial burden. Electron microscopy (EM), bacterial colonization assays (Live/Dead) staining, and colony forming units (CFU) analyses were completed. A second dosing experiment was completed with 34 mice randomized into 4 groups: control, 2 mg, 4 mg, and 8 mg groups.

Results

The (+VP) treatment group exhibited significantly lower bacterial loads compared to the control (No-VP) group, (p<.001). CFU analysis at the conclusion of the experiment revealed 20% of mice in the +VP group and 67% of mice in the No-VP group had persistent infections, and the (+VP) treatment group had significantly less mean number of CFUs (p<.03). EM and Live/Dead staining revealed florid biofilm formation in the No-VP group. Bioluminescence was suppressed in all VP doses tested compared with sterile controls (p<.001). CFU analysis revealed a 40%, 10%, and 20% persistent infection rate in the 2 mg, 4 mg, and 8 mg dose groups, respectively. CFU counts across dosing groups were not statistically different (p=.56).

Conclusions

Vancomycin powder provided an overall infection prevention benefit but failed to eradicate infection in all mice. Furthermore, the dose when halved also demonstrated an overall protective benefit, albeit at a lower rate.

Clinical significance

Vancomycin powder is efficacious but should not be viewed as a panacea for perioperative infection prevention. Dose alterations can be considered, especially in patients with kidney disease or at high risk for seroma.