Background: The exceptional competitiveness of the orthopedic surgery specialty, combined with the unclear impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residency recruitment, has presented significant challenges to applicants and residency program directors. With limited in-person opportunities in the 2020-2021 application cycle, applicants have been pressed to gauge chances and best fit by browsing program websites. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the accessibility and content of accredited orthopedic surgery residency program websites during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Using the online database of the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), we compiled a list of accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States. Program websites were evaluated across four domains: program overview, education, research opportunities, and application details. Each website was assessed twice in July 2020, during a period of adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic, and twice in November 2020, following the October ERAS application deadline. Results: A total of 189 accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs were identified through ERAS. Of these programs, 3 (1.6%) did not have functional website links on ERAS. Data analysis of content in each domain revealed that most websites included program details, a description of the didactic curriculum, and sample rotation schedules. Between the two evaluation periods in July and November 2020, the percentage of program websites containing informative videos and virtual tours rose from 12.2% (23/189) to 48.1% (91/189; P<.001) and from 0.5% (1/189) to 13.2% (25/189; P<.001), respectively. However, the number of programs that included information about a virtual subinternship or virtual interview on their websites did not change. Over the 4-month period, larger residency programs with 5 or more residents were significantly more likely to add a program video (P<.001) or virtual tour (P<.001) to their websites. Conclusions: Most residency program websites offered program details and an overview of educational and research opportunities; however, few addressed the virtual transition of interviews and subinternships during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Biomimetics is the science of imitating nature’s designs and processes to create innovative solutions for various fields, including dentistry and craniofacial reconstruction. In these areas, biomimetics involves drawing inspiration from living organisms/systems to develop new materials, techniques, and devices that closely resemble natural tissue structures and enhance functionality. This field has successfully demonstrated its potential to revolutionize craniofacial procedures, significantly improving patient outcomes. In dentistry, biomimetics offers exciting possibilities for the advancement of new dental materials, restorative techniques, and regenerative potential. By analyzing the structure/composition of natural teeth and the surrounding tissues, researchers have developed restorative materials that mimic the properties of teeth, as well as regenerative techniques that might assist in repairing enamel, dentin, pulp, cementum, periodontal ligament, and bone. In craniofacial reconstruction, biomimetics plays a vital role in developing innovative solutions for facial trauma, congenital defects, and various conditions affecting the maxillofacial region. By studying the intricate composition and mechanical properties of the skull and facial bones, clinicians and engineers have been able to replicate natural structures leveraging computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and 3D printing. This has allowed for the creation of patient-specific scaffolds, implants, and prostheses that accurately fit a patient’s anatomy. This review highlights the current evidence on the application of biomimetics in the fields of dentistry and craniofacial reconstruction.

The use of invasive intracranial electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring in the patient with a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversionary shunt presents a conundrum -- the presence of a percutaneous electrode passing into the intracranial compartment presents a pathway for entry of pathogens to which a chronically implanted device like a shunt is especially susceptible to infection. In this case report, we describe the clinical and radiological features, medical and surgical management, and treatment outcomes of pediatric patients with shunted hydrocephalus who underwent invasive intracranial monitoring over an eight-year period. Three cases of children undergoing invasive intracranial monitoring were included in this study. Invasive monitoring for each patient occurred over three to six days. In each case, invasive intracranial monitoring was completed successfully, without resulting infection or shunt malfunction. While the second procedure was complicated by the formation of a pneumocephalus, there was no associated midline shift, and invasive intracranial monitoring was completed without incidence. Each patient received further surgery that successfully reduced seizure frequency. This study suggests that, while children with CSF diversionary shunts are at an inherently increased risk for infection and other complications, invasive intracranial monitoring is a relatively safe and feasible option in these patients. Future studies should explore the optimal duration for intracranial monitoring in pediatric patients with chronically implanted devices.