Ian James Wellington

Dr. Ian James Wellington

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 December 2022 in Bioengineering
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JCJohn Patrick Connors
John Patrick Connors
JSJohn W. Stelzer
John W. Stelzer
PGPatrick M. Garvin
Patrick M. Garvin
IWIan James Wellington
Ian James Wellington
OSOlga Solovyova
Olga Solovyova
Periprosthetic osteolysis remains a leading complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty, often resulting in aseptic loosening of the implant and necessitating revision surgery. Wear-induced particulate debris is the main cause initiating this destructive process. The purpose of this article is to review recent advances in understanding of how wear debris causes osteolysis, and emergent strategies for the avoidance and treatment of this disease. A strong activator of the peri-implant innate immune this debris-induced inflammatory cascade is dictated by macrophage secretion of TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, and IL-8, and PGE2, leading to peri-implant bone resorption through activation of osteoclasts and inhibition of osteoblasts through several mechanisms, including the RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway. Therapeutic agents against proinflammatory mediators, such as those targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF), osteoclasts, and sclerostin, have shown promise in reducing peri-implant osteolysis in vitro and in vivo; however, radiographic changes and clinical diagnosis often lag considerably behind the initiation of osteolysis, making timely treatment difficult. Considerable efforts are underway to develop such diagnostic tools, therapies, and identify novel targets for therapeutic intervention.

28 September 2021 in JSES International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JSJohn W. Stelzer
John W. Stelzer
IWIan James Wellington
Ian James Wellington
MTMaxwell Trudeau
Maxwell Trudeau
MMMichael R Mancini
Michael R Mancini
MLMatthew R. LeVasseur
Matthew R. LeVasseur
AMAugustus D. Mazzocca
Augustus D. Mazzocca
Previous studies have demonstrated that online patient educational materials are written at reading levels too advanced for the average patient. The average American reads at the eighth-grade reading level. To date, the readability of online educational material of academic centers for shoulder arthroplasty has not been analyzed. Online patient educational materials from the top 25 orthopedic institutions, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, were assessed utilizing the following readability assessments: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, Automated Readability Index, FORCAST, and the New Dale and Chall Readability. All of these scores, with the exception of the Flesch Reading Ease, provide an output indicating reading difficulty based on grade level. Correlations between academic institutional ranking and FK scores were evaluated using a Spearman regression. Lastly, additional factors including geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities that may impact institutional readability scores (as determined by FK) were evaluated. Only 16.0% of the top 25 institutions included online material at or below the eighth-grade reading level. Moreover, half of the online resources evaluated (those with FK score ≥9.3) were not at a suitable reading level for more than two-thirds of the general United States population (∼70%). Overall, the composite mean scores were 9.5 ± 2.1 for FK, 52.8 ± 9. for 4 Flesch Reading Ease, 12.2 ± 2.4 for Gunning Fog, 11.6 ± 1.8 for Coleman-Liau, 12.3 ± 1.7 for Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, 9.6 ± 2.6 for Automated Readability, 11.1 ± 0.6 for FORCAST, and 5.9 ± 0.6 for New Dale and Chall. There was no correlation between institutional ranking and FK scores (ρ = −0.15; P = .946). Geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities were not significantly associated with readability. Shoulder arthroplasty online patient educational material at top-ranked orthopedic institutions have poor readability and are likely not suitable for the majority of patients in the United States.

23 May 2022 in Bioengineering
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
IWIan James Wellington
Ian James Wellington
CKCameron Kia
Cameron Kia
ECErgin Coskun
Ergin Coskun
BTBarrett B. Torre
Barrett B. Torre
CAChristopher L. Antonacci
Christopher L. Antonacci
HMHeeren S. Makanji
Heeren S. Makanji
While spinal disc pathology has traditionally been treated using fusion-based procedures, recent interest in motion-preserving disc arthroplasties has grown. Traditional spinal fusion is associated with loss of motion, alteration of native spine kinematics, and increased risks of adjacent segment disease. The motion conferred by disc arthroplasty is believed to combat these complications. While the first implant designs resulted in poor patient outcomes, recent advances in implant design and technology have shown promising radiographic and clinical outcomes when compared with traditional fusion. These results have led to a rapid increase in the utilization of disc arthroplasty, with rates of cervical arthroplasty nearly tripling over the course of 7 years. The purpose of this review was to discuss the evolution of implant design, the current implant designs utilized, and their associated outcomes. Although disc arthroplasty shows significant promise in addressing some of the drawbacks associated with fusion, it is not without its own risks. Osteolysis, implant migration, and the development of heterotopic ossification have all been associated with disc arthroplasty. As interest in these procedures grows, so does the interest in developing improved implant designs aimed at decreasing these adverse outcomes. Though they are still relatively new, cervical and lumbar disc arthroplasty are likely to become foundational methodologies for the treatment of disc pathology.

21 March 2024 in Global Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PMPaul G. Mastrokostas
Paul G. Mastrokostas
LMLeonidas E. Mastrokostas
Leonidas E. Mastrokostas
AEAhmed K. Emara
Ahmed K. Emara
IWIan James Wellington
Ian James Wellington
EGElizabeth Ginalis
Elizabeth Ginalis
MNMitchell K. Ng
Mitchell K. Ng
Study Design: Comparative study. Objectives: This study aims to compare Google and GPT-4 in terms of (1) question types, (2) response readability, (3) source quality, and (4) numerical response accuracy for the top 10 most frequently asked questions (FAQs) about anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: “Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion” was searched on Google and GPT-4 on December 18, 2023. Top 10 FAQs were classified according to the Rothwell system. Source quality was evaluated using JAMA benchmark criteria and readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Differences in JAMA scores, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, and word count between platforms were analyzed using Student’s t-tests. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. Results: Frequently asked questions from Google were varied, while GPT-4 focused on technical details and indications/management. GPT-4 showed a higher Flesch-Kincaid grade level (12.96 vs 9.28, P = .003), lower Flesch Reading Ease score (37.07 vs 54.85, P = .005), and higher JAMA scores for source quality (3.333 vs 1.800, P = .016). Numerically, 6 out of 10 responses varied between platforms, with GPT-4 providing broader recovery timelines for ACDF. Conclusions: This study demonstrates GPT-4’s ability to elevate patient education by providing high-quality, diverse information tailored to those with advanced literacy levels. As AI technology evolves, refining these tools for accuracy and user-friendliness remains crucial, catering to patients’ varying literacy levels and information needs in spine surgery.

6 March 2022 in Bioengineering
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CKCameron Kia
Cameron Kia
CAChristopher L. Antonacci
Christopher L. Antonacci
IWIan James Wellington
Ian James Wellington
HMHeeren S. Makanji
Heeren S. Makanji
SESean M. Esmende
Sean M. Esmende
The use of interbody implants for spinal fusion has been steadily increasing to avoid the risks of complications and donor site morbidity when using autologous bone. Understanding the pros and cons of various implant designs can assist the surgeon in choosing the ideal interbody for each individual patient. The goal of these interbody cages is to promote a surface area for bony ingrowth while having the biomechanical properties to support the axial skeleton. Currently, the majority of interbody implants consists of metal or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cages with bone graft incorporated inside. Titanium alloy implants have been commonly used, however, the large difference in modulus of elasticity from bone has inherent issues. PEEK implants have a desirable surface area with the benefit of a modulus of elasticity closer to that of bone. Unfortunately, clinically, these devices have had increased risk of subsidence. More recently, 3D printed implants have come into the market, providing mechanical stability with increased surface design for bony ingrowth. While clinical outcomes studies are limited, early results have demonstrated more reliable and quicker fusion rates using 3D custom interbody devices. In this review, we discuss the biology of osseointegration, the use of surface coated implants, as well as the potential benefits of using 3D printed interbodies.

1 November 2022 in JSES International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
IWIan James Wellington
Ian James Wellington
ADAnnabelle P. Davey
Annabelle P. Davey
MCMark P. Cote
Mark P. Cote
BHBenjamin C. Hawthorne
Benjamin C. Hawthorne
CDCaitlin G. Dorsey
Caitlin G. Dorsey
AMAugustus D. Mazzocca
Augustus D. Mazzocca
A Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) value is the amount of change in a patient-reported outcome measure required for a patient to feel they significantly improved from an intervention. Previously published SCB values are often cited by researchers when publishing outcomes data. Where these SCB values are set can have a large impact on the conclusions drawn from a study citing them. As such, the goal of this study was to determine the generalizability of SCB values for a procedure when stratified by time from surgery and geographic region. A nationwide outcomes database was utilized to obtain preoperative, one-year, and two-year postoperative outcome measurements for patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse TSA. The data were divided into three geographic regions: the South, the Midwest, and the West. An East region was not included due to its limited number of patients. SCB values were calculated for four outcomes measures: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons score, Visual Analog Scale, and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder score. SCB values were calculated for each region, for each procedure, and at both one and two years postoperatively. To determine the variability of potential SCBs within each region, simulated datasets were created to determine a distribution of possible calculated SCBs. A total of 380 anatomic TSA patients and 543 reverse TSA patients were included for analysis. There was a high degree of variability of SCB values when stratified by procedure, time, and region. While some simulated datasets did produce homogenous SCB distributions among regions, some outcome measures demonstrated a large heterogeneity in distribution among regions, with concomitant large distributions of values within individual regions. There is notable heterogeneity of SCB values when stratified by region or time. The current method of citing previously published SCB values for determining the efficacy of an intervention may be inappropriate. It is likely that this variability holds true in other areas of orthopedics.