The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery最新文献

{"title":"Differences in Orthopaedic Surgeon Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Performance, Demographics, and Patient Populations Based on Patient Social Risk.","authors":"Alejandro M Holle,Eugenia Lin,Vikram S Gill,Jack M Haglin,Henry D Clarke","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01419","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has undergone numerous changes to promote care for patients at high social risk. However, the effect of these changes on surgeon MIPS performance and caseload selection remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how orthopaedic surgeon MIPS scores, demographics, practice characteristics, and patient populations varied on the basis of patient social risk in 2017 compared with 2021.METHODSCMS data were utilized to examine U.S. orthopaedic surgeons. Surgeons were placed into social-risk quintiles on the basis of the proportion of their patients who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, with the highest quintile representing the highest social risk. Demographics, practice location characteristics, patient data, and MIPS performance were assessed for the years 2017 and 2021. Differences between social-risk quintiles were assessed utilizing chi-square, Student t, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and multivariable logistic regression.RESULTSIn 2017, surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk had lower MIPS performance scores (mean [and standard deviation], 66.0 ± 37.6 versus 70.1 ± 33.5; p < 0.001). However, in 2021, orthopaedic surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk had significantly higher MIPS performance scores (mean, 88.7 ± 16.9 versus 81.5 ± 18.3; p < 0.001). In terms of demographics, in 2021, orthopaedic surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk were more often women (9.2% versus 3.6%; p < 0.001), more often had a DO degree (11.2% versus 6.6%; p < 0.001), more recently graduated from medical school (mean, 23.0 ± 12.9 versus 25.7 ± 10.9 years; p < 0.001), and worked in areas with higher Distressed Communities Index (DCI) distress scores (mean, 56.9 ± 27.3 versus 35.1 ± 25.2; p < 0.001). Similar findings were present in 2017.CONCLUSIONSThe addition of the Complex Patient Bonus to the MIPS in 2020 may have reduced performance inequities in MIPS scoring for surgeons with caseloads at high social risk. However, the demographics and practice patterns of the orthopaedic surgeons caring for populations at the highest social risk remained consistent between years.LEVEL OF EVIDENCEPrognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144487914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"High Failure Rates of Polyethylene Glenoid Components in Stemless Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Primary and Secondary OA.","authors":"Moritz Kraus,Asimina Lazaridou,Mara Warnhoff,Johanna Illner,Moritz Brunner,Tim Schneller,Markus Scheibel","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01126","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDGlenoid component loosening remains a challenge in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The aims of this study were to evaluate complications, implant survival, and revision rates in patients with primary and secondary osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing stemless aTSA using the Arthrex Eclipse humeral implant with a cemented pegged all-polyethylene glenoid component and to identify risk factors leading to revision.METHODSOf 211 patients who underwent primary stemless aTSA (using the Eclipse humeral component with a cemented pegged all-polyethylene glenoid) with prospectively documented data in a local registry, 197 were evaluated, grouped by OA pathology (primary OA, 153 patients; secondary OA, 44 patients). Demographic and functional data (e.g., age, sex, shoulder function) and the cause of OA were documented preoperatively in both groups. Comparative analyses were conducted to assess complications and implant revisions between the study groups. In addition, various radiographic parameters (e.g., glenoid morphology, critical shoulder angle, lateral acromion index, implant sizing [humeral component overhang], radial matching of the humeral and glenoid components, glenohumeral distance, and medial glenoid cement penetration) were evaluated to explore their potential association with revision. A subset of these parameters was subsequently included in the multivariable Cox model on the basis of clinical relevance.RESULTSAfter a median postoperative period of 72 months, the overall revision rate was 51%. The reasons for revision were glenoid component loosening (85%), periprosthetic humeral fracture (9%), early rotator cuff failure (3%), and low-grade infection (3%). The median implant survival in patients with primary OA (95 months; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 84 to 108) was significantly longer than that in patients with secondary OA (71 months; 95% CI: 60 to 88; p = 0.027). Female patients had a significantly shorter time to revision than male patients (p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in complications or revision rates by OA pathology. Secondary OA, the presence of medial glenoid cement penetration, and an anterior overhang of the humeral component were associated with an increased risk of revision.CONCLUSIONSOur findings indicate a high rate of glenoid component loosening as the primary cause of revision in patients with primary and secondary OA undergoing stemless aTSA with the Eclipse and a cemented pegged all-polyethylene glenoid component. This outcome emphasizes the need for careful consideration of implant design, patient selection criteria, and implant positioning and cementation in order to optimize implant survival.LEVEL OF EVIDENCETherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144487917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Risk of Early Periprosthetic Tibial Fracture After Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty with Cemented Versus Cementless Fixation: A Nationwide Cohort Study.","authors":"Stefan Risager,Anders Troelsen,Bjarke Viberg,Cecilie Henkel,Martin Lindberg-Larsen","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01538","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDThe usage of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) is increasing, but concerns remain regarding the risk of early periprosthetic tibial fracture (PPTF), particularly following cementless mUKA. The aims of this study were to compare the risk of PPTF between cemented and cementless mUKAs and to analyze risk factors for early PPTF.METHODSUsing data from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register and the Danish National Patient Registry, all mUKAs from 1997 to 2022 were identified and stratified as cemented or cementless mUKAs. Subsequent fractures were identified through the reason for revision, diagnosis codes, and fracture-specific procedure codes.RESULTSThis study included 9,700 cemented mUKAs (mean follow-up of 9 years) and 12,380 cementless mUKAs (mean follow-up of 3 years). The 4-month cumulative proportions of PPTF were 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2% to 0.4%) after cemented mUKA and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.6% to 0.9%) after cementless mUKA. Risk factors for early PPTF (≤4 months) were cementless mUKA (hazard ratio [HR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 5.5), female sex (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.2), an age of ≥70 years (HR, 4.0; 2.5 to 6.4), body mass index (BMI) of ≥40 kg/m2 (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 5.8), and a height of <160 cm (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.6). Female patients ≥70 years of age with a BMI of ≥40 kg/m2 and/or a height of <160 cm represented 3% of all mUKAs. In this group, patients with cementless mUKA had a 4-month cumulative proportion of PPTF of 4.5% (95% CI, 2.9% to 6.9%).CONCLUSIONSThe risk of early, surgery-related PPTF was higher after cementless mUKA compared with cemented mUKA. Risk factors for early PPTF include cementless mUKA, female sex, an age of ≥70 years, a BMI of ≥40 kg/m2, and a height of <160 cm. Our data highlight the need for careful, bone-conserving tibial preparation and consideration of cemented tibial fixation for female patients ≥70 years of age with a height of <160 cm and/or a BMI of ≥40 kg/m2.LEVEL OF EVIDENCEPrognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144478636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Orthopaedic Slang: Time for a Revision?","authors":"Lucy Zhao,Thomas J Policicchio,Austin T Gregg,Adam N Musick,Maaz Muhammad,Mitchel B Harris,Thuan V Ly","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01373","url":null,"abstract":"Medical slang is commonly used in the orthopaedic community to improve communication, enhance team cohesion, and provide humor in intense work environments. However, when used carelessly, inappropriate terminology can alienate certain groups of physicians. When encountered in clinical settings, these terms can create uncomfortable environments, reduce trust, and discourage trainees from pursuing orthopaedics. To create more inclusive and effective clinical teams, it is important to regularly reassess medical slang and develop alternative terms that are respectful, practical, and consistent. This contemporary article highlights 8 examples of inappropriate terminology that are used in the orthopaedic community, explores their history of use, and suggests more appropriate alternatives.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144478890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparing the in Vitro Efficacy of Commonly Used Surgical Irrigants for the Treatment of Implant-Associated Infections.","authors":"Christopher D Hamad,William L Sheppard,Rene F Chun,Zara Mamouei,Trevor S Lloyd,Alan K Li,Rahul Sobti,Jack W Pearce,Adolfo Hernandez,Matthew V Dipane,Serena S Hu,Nicholas M Bernthal,Edward J McPherson","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01225","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDImplant-associated infections (IAIs) require aggressive debridement to eliminate microbial bioburden. The use of irrigants may improve microbial killing during debridement. This study compared the efficacy of surgical irrigants in vitro against Staphylococcus aureus alone and in combination with Candida albicans, in both planktonic and biofilm states.METHODSFull-strength Dakin's solution, 0.35% povidone-iodine (PI), 10% PI, 3% hydrogen peroxide (HP), a 1:1 combination of 10% PI and 3% HP (PI + HP), Irrisept, XPERIENCE, Bactisure, and normal saline solution were tested. For planktonic testing, 1 × 106 colony-forming units (CFUs) of S. aureus and C. albicans were utilized, and biofilms were grown in these conditions on 0.8 × 10-mm titanium alloy Kirschner wires for 48 hours. Killing assays were performed using 5-minute dwell times. Success was defined by complete eradication of planktonic or biofilm CFUs.RESULTSPI + HP and Bactisure were the only irrigants to eradicate S. aureus in both planktonic and biofilm states. PI + HP was the only irrigant to eradicate polymicrobial S. aureus + C. albicans bioburden in both states.CONCLUSIONSPI + HP and Bactisure were superior irrigants against S. aureus, eliminating it in planktonic and biofilm states. PI + HP was the only irrigant to eradicate polymicrobial S. aureus + C. albicans bioburden in both states. In vivo studies are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness.CLINICAL RELEVANCESurgical irrigants have variable efficacy in eradicating microbes depending on their state of existence (planktonic versus biofilm). In this study, the most effective eradication of polymicrobial S. aureus + C. albicans bioburden was a 1:1 combination of 10% PI and 3% HP, which is of nominal cost.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144328778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bridging Health Literacy Gaps in Spine Care: Using ChatGPT-4o to Improve Patient-Education Materials.","authors":"Joseph E Nassar,Michael J Farias,Lama A Ammar,Rhea Rasquinha,Andrew Y Xu,Manjot Singh,Daniel Alsoof,Bassel G Diebo,Alan H Daniels","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01484","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDPatient-education materials (PEMs) are essential to improve health literacy, engagement, and treatment adherence, yet many exceed the recommended readability levels. Therefore, individuals with limited health literacy are at a disadvantage. This study evaluated the readability of spine-related PEMs from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), the North American Spine Society (NASS), and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), and examined the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in optimizing PEMs for improved patient comprehension.METHODSA total of 146 spine-related PEMs from the AAOS, NASS, and AANS websites were analyzed. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index scores, as well as other metrics, including language complexity and use of the passive voice. ChatGPT-4o was used to revise the PEMs to a sixth-grade reading level, and post-revision readability was assessed. Test-retest reliability was evaluated, and paired t tests were used to compare the readability scores of the original and AI-modified PEMs.RESULTSThe original PEMs had a mean FKGL of 10.2 ± 2.6, which significantly exceeded both the recommended sixth-grade reading level and the average U.S. eighth-grade reading level (p < 0.05). ChatGPT-4o generated articles with a significantly reduced mean FKGL of 6.6 ± 1.3 (p < 0.05). ChatGPT-4o also improved other readability metrics, including the SMOG Index score, language complexity, and use of the passive voice, while maintaining accuracy and adequate detail. Excellent test-retest reliability was observed across all of the metrics (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] range, 0.91 to 0.98).CONCLUSIONSSpine-related PEMs from the AAOS, the NASS, and the AANS remain excessively complex, despite minor improvements to readability over the years. ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the potential to enhance PEM readability while maintaining content quality. Future efforts should integrate AI tools with visual aids and user-friendly platforms to create inclusive and comprehensible PEMs to address diverse patient needs and improve health-care delivery.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144328587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Risk of Revision and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Primary UKR Performed Using Computer Navigation or Patient-Specific Instrumentation: An Analysis of National Joint Registry Data.","authors":"M M Farhan-Alanie,D Gallacher,P Craig,J Griffin,J Kozdryk,J Mason,P D H Wall,J M Wilkinson,A Metcalfe,P Foguet","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01483","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDComputer navigation and patient-specific instrumentation in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) improve the precision of implant positioning, but there is limited information regarding their impact on implant survival and patient-reported outcomes. We aimed to compare postoperative implant survival, Oxford Knee Score (OKS) values, health-related quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimension 3-level version [EQ-5D-3L]), and intraoperative complications between UKRs performed using computer navigation or patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation.METHODSUsing National Joint Registry data, an observational study of patients who underwent primary UKR for osteoarthritis between 2003 and 2020 was performed. The primary analyses focused on all-cause revision, and the secondary analyses focused on differences in the OKS and EQ-5D-3L at 6 to 12 months postoperatively. To account for several covariates, weights based on propensity scores were generated. Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear models were used to assess for differences in revision risk, and OKS and EQ-5D-3L change scores, respectively, between patient groups. Sensitivity analyses accounting for body mass index were performed. Effective sample sizes (ESSs) were computed, representing the statistical power comparable with that of an unweighted sample.RESULTSCompared with conventional instrumentation, the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause revision was 1.126 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.909 to 1.395; p = 0.277; ESS, 4,273) with computer navigation and 0.805 (95% CI, 0.442 to 1.467; p = 0.478; ESS, 1,199) with patient-specific instrumentation. No difference was found in the change in OKS between the groups (-1.287; 95% CI, -2.851 to 0.278; p = 0.107; ESS, 470), although improvement in the EQ-5D-3L scores was relatively lower for computer-navigated UKR compared with conventional instrumentation (-0.049, 95% CI, -0.093 to -0.005; p = 0.028; ESS, 455). However, sensitivity analyses demonstrated that computer navigation was associated with an increased risk of all-cause revision (HR, 1.446; 95% CI, 1.102 to 1.898; p = 0.008; ESS, 3,011) and relatively smaller improvements in the OKS (-2.845; 95% CI, -5.006 to -0.684; p = 0.010; ESS, 272) and EQ-5D-3L scores (-0.087; 95% CI, -0.145 to -0.030; p = 0.003; ESS, 286). There were no differences in intraoperative complications (p = 0.073).CONCLUSIONSThis study found no clinically meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes following computer-navigated UKR. Although likely underpowered, the primary analyses showed no difference in implant survival. While a sensitivity analysis suggested that computer navigation could worsen implant survival, this analysis had a smaller sample size. These findings highlight potential signals that warrant further investigation.LEVEL OF EVIDENCETherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144328589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measurement of Value in Uncomplicated Total Knee Arthroplasty: Patient-Level and Provider-Level Value Analyses of a 1-Year Episode of Care.","authors":"Rebekah M Kleinsmith,Haley D Puckett,Nicholas F Banfield,Cole E Bothun,Stephen A Doxey,Patrick K Horst,Joshua S Bingham,Brian P Cunningham","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01485","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDPatient-level value analysis (PLVA) has been applied to several orthopaedic procedures but has not yet been utilized to assess the value of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 1-year episode of care for TKA with use of PLVA to identify characteristics that influence value at both the patient and surgeon level.METHODSThe institutional patient-reported outcome (PRO) database was queried for all patients who underwent TKA from 2020 to 2022. Patients were excluded on the basis of an index revision procedure, a pathology other than primary osteoarthritis, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, robotic-assisted TKA, incomplete baseline or 1-year PROs, concomitant procedures (i.e., bilateral TKA or hardware removal), complications requiring readmission or reoperation, TKA without patellar resurfacing, the use of constrained implants, incomplete cost information, or other hip or knee arthroplasty procedure during the 1-year episode of care. PROs of interest included preoperative and 1-year postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) scores. Episode-of-care costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing. The 1-year value quotient (VKOOS) was calculated for each patient as the ratio of the 1-year change in KOOS-JR score to the total episode-of-care cost.RESULTSA total of 684 patients (62% female; mean age, 68 ± 8 years) met the inclusion criteria. The mean KOOS-JR score significantly increased from baseline (53 ± 11) to 1 year (79 ± 14; p < 0.001), with a mean improvement of 26 ± 16. The mean total episode-of-care cost was $9,563 ± $2,370. There was no significant correlation between episode-of-care costs and the change in KOOS-JR score (r = 0.02; p = 0.581). Surgery performed at an ambulatory surgery center (p < 0.001) and as an outpatient procedure (p = 0.036) were predictive of lower costs. Patient-specific instrumentation (p < 0.001) and a tibial stem extension (p < 0.001) were predictive of higher costs. Older age (p = 0.023) and male sex (p = 0.007) were predictive of less improvement in KOOS-JR scores from baseline to 1 year.CONCLUSIONSOur study identified patient and surgical characteristics that drive costs and PROs in TKA. PLVA can be used to identify \"bright spots\" in orthopaedic procedures to optimize care delivery.LEVEL OF EVIDENCEPrognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144328586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Patient's View of Success: Commentary on an article by Bahar Entezari, MD, et al.: \"Successful Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Joint Arthroplasty, as Defined by the Patient. A Qualitative Study\".","authors":"Nicholas Michael Hernandez,JaeWon Yang","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.25.00097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.25.00097","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"45 1","pages":"e66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144319937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Skin Antisepsis: When New Evidence Emerges, Reevaluate Your Practice: Commentary on an article by Iberê Pereira Datti, MD: \"Skin Antisepsis in the Surgical Treatment of Extremity Fractures. Should We Reject the Null Hypothesis?\"","authors":"Gerard Slobogean,Nathan N O'Hara,Sheila Sprague,","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.25.00366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.25.00366","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"13 1","pages":"e69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144320212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}