Background: Recent studies indicate that women are substantially underrepresented as orthopaedic surgeons and residents compared with other specialties in medicine and medical school. The reasons for this are multifactorial and not completely understood, but previous studies suggest that women may be attracted to fields in which they have female role models. Given that women interested in academia and research may use female editorship and authorship as a proxy for female representation in orthopaedic surgery, we wanted to examine the proportion of women represented in orthopaedic journals and determine if it reflects the distribution of women in orthopaedic surgery as a field. We further wanted to understand if this representation has changed over time in the setting of a slowly shifting gender landscape within orthopaedic surgery. Questions/purposes: (1) How are women orthopaedic surgeons and residents represented in orthopaedic journals compared with men? (2) Have these proportions changed in the past two decades in light of relatively new efforts to recruit women to the field of orthopaedic surgery? Methods: The gender composition of editorial boards and first and last authors were obtained from the 1997, 2007, and 2017 volumes of the following journals: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (JAAOS), and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®). Gender neutral names were searched to obtain a picture to ensure proper tallies. Results: The total combined amount of women first and last authors increased from 88 of 1450 (6%) in 1997 to 152 of 1912 (8%) in 2007 to 723 of 5391 (13%) in 2017. Similarly, three of 113 (3%) editorial board members were women in 1997, three of 105 (3%) were women in 2007 and 10 of 107 (9%) editors were women in 2017. Of note, 0 out of 9 editors-in-chief were women. Conclusions: Based on the current percentage of women orthopaedic surgeons and residents, women are represented equally or in greater numbers as editors and authors in JAAOS, JBJS, and CORR. This may be in part due to women orthopaedic surgeons entering academic medicine at a greater rate than males. Clinical Relevance: Orthopaedic surgeons serving as mentors to prospective female applicants can cite female representation on editorial boards and as authors as an example of gender parity in the field. Additionally, active orthopaedic surgeons who are women interested in these leadership positions should be encouraged that these opportunities exist, regardless of gender.

Background: Several studies have identified discrepancies in salary between male and female surgeons. Our aim was to investigate the impact of sex on an orthopaedic surgeon’s yearly earnings by evaluating stratified income and specialty data from a large sample survey of orthopaedic surgeons. Methods: Self-reported data were obtained from the 2014 and 2008 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) biennial censuses. Responses were received from 6,805 (24.26%) of those who were surveyed. The census form is a 19-question survey that includes information regarding work status (full time versus part time), sex, years in practice, practice type (private versus academic), specialty, hours worked, case volume, and income. The main outcome evaluated was self-reported income, and a multivariate regression model was used to control for confounding variables. Results: Male surgeons reported higher incomes than female colleagues working equivalent hours ($802,474 versus $560,618; p = 0.016); however, male surgeons reported a greater case volume for the same number of hours. Among surgeons who performed ≥26 procedures per month, male and female surgeons reported comparable incomes ($949,508 versus $872,903; p = 0.649). Incomes of those in practice for >20 years also were comparable. Regression analysis controlling for subspecialty choice, hours worked, work status, case volume, years in practice, and practice setting revealed that income was $62,032.51 less for women than men (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Income disparity between male and female orthopaedic surgeons remains significant, and the gap increased from 2008 to 2014. Although subspecialty choice, practice setting, years in practice, and amount and distribution of procedures performed can partially explain salary differences, our regression analysis suggests persistence of an income gap based on sex in orthopaedic surgery.

Background: Previous studies evaluating the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients with global acetabular overcoverage and focal superolateral acetabular overcoverage suffer from short-term follow-up and inconsistent radiographic criteria when defining these subpopulations of patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Purpose: To evaluate the intermediate-term postoperative outcomes for patients with FAIS in the setting of global acetabular overcoverage, lateral acetabular overcoverage, and normal acetabular coverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS were enrolled in a prospective cohort study, and those with a minimum follow-up of 5 years were included in this analysis. Patients were grouped based on type of acetabular coverage: global overcoverage (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] ≥40°, with coxa profunda), lateral overcoverage (LCEA ≥40°, without coxa profunda), and no overcoverage (LCEA 40° (β = −13.3; 95% CI, –24.1 to −2.6; P = .016), female sex (β = −14.5; 95% CI, –22.7 to −6.2; P = .001), and higher body mass index (β = −1.9; 95% CI, –2.8 to −1.0; P < .001) were associated with worse intermediate-term hip function in terms of modified Harris Hip Score. Conclusion: There was no difference in functional outcomes or rate of reoperation at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively between those with global acetabular overcoverage, those with regional lateral overcoverage, and those with normal acetabular coverage. Provided that an appropriate acetabuloplasty is performed, there is no evidence to suggest that global acetabular overcoverage portends a worse prognosis than other FAIS subtypes.

Background: Spinopelvic parameters, including pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic incidence, have been developed to characterize the relationship between lumbar spine and hip motion, but a paucity of literature is available characterizing differences in spinopelvic parameters among patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) versus patients without FAIS, as well as the effect of these parameters on outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of FAIS. Purpose: To (1) identify differences in spinopelvic parameters between patients with FAIS versus controls without FAIS; (2) identify associations between spinopelvic parameters and preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs); and (3) identify differences in PROs between patients with stiff spines (standing-sitting ΔSS ≤10°) versus those without. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The study enrolled patients ≥18 years of age who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAIS with cam, pincer, or mixed (cam and pincer) morphology. Participants underwent preoperative standing-sitting imaging with a low-dose 3-dimensional radiography system and were matched on age and body mass index (BMI) to controls without FAIS who also underwent EOS imaging. Spinopelvic parameters measured on EOS films were compared between the FAIS and control groups. Patients with FAIS completed the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) before surgery and at 1-year follow-up. Outcome scores were compared between patients with stiff spines versus those without. Associations between spinopelvic parameters and baseline outcome scores were assessed with Pearson correlations. Continuous variables were compared with Student t test and/or Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables were compared with Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 50 patients with FAIS (26 men; 24 women; mean age, 36.1 ± 10.7 years; mean BMI, 25.6 ± 4.2) were matched to 30 controls without FAIS (13 men; 17 women; mean age, 36.6 ± 9.5 years; mean BMI, 26.7 ± 3.6). Age, sex, and BMI were not significantly different between the FAIS and control groups ( P > .05). Standing PT was not significantly different between stiff and non-stiff cohorts ( P = .73), but sitting PT in the FAIS group was more than double that of the control group (36.5° vs 15.0°; P < .001). Incidence of stiff spine was significantly higher in the FAIS group (62.0% vs 3.3%; P < .001). Among FAIS patients, those with stiff spines had a significantly higher prevalence of cam impingement, whereas those with non–stiff spines had a higher prevalence of mixed impingement ( P = .04). No significant differences were seen in preoperative mHHS or NAHS scores or pre- to postoperative improvement in scores between FAIS patients with stiff spines versus those without ( P > .05), but a greater sitting SS was found to be positively correlated with a higher baseline mHHS ( r = 0.36; P = .02). Conclusion: Patients with FAIS were more likely to have a stiff spine (standing-sitting ΔSS ≤10°) compared with control participants without FAIS. FAIS patients with stiff spines were more likely to have isolated cam morphology than patient without stiff spines. Although sitting SS was positively correlated with baseline mHHS, no significant differences were seen in 1-year postoperative outcomes between FAIS patients with versus without stiff spine.