Treating spinal compression fractures

Robert A. McGuire Jr, MD

At their meeting on Sept. 24, 2010, the AAOS Board of Directors approved a new clinical practice guideline on the treatment of osteoporotic spinal compression fractures (Fig. 1). The new guideline includes 11 recommendations, including one that is strongly supported by good quality evidence and one that is supported by fair quality evidence (see Table 1, PDF).

The 510(k) Process—It’s Not Broken, so Why “Fix” It?

William M. Mihalko, MD, PhD, with Ammar Al-Saraf, Ali Al-Saraf; Katherine Sale

Chances are, if you implanted an orthopaedic device today, it arrived in the marketplace via the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 510(k) program (Figure 1). Since 2003, more than 99 percent of all medical devices have been cleared through this pathway, compared to less than 1 percent approved through the premarket approval (PMA) process.

Early support shapes a career

Sally T. Halderman

Grant recipient credits OREF funding for motivating his interest in academic orthopaedics Frederick A. (Rick) Matsen III, MD, says a series of 1970s grants from the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) played a key role in shaping his career trajectory. “I credit OREF with helping steer me toward academic medicine.

Basing practice on evidence

Terry Stanton

Work group chair discusses vertebroplasty recommendation The newest clinical practice guideline—on the Treatment of Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures—includes a strong recommendation against the use of vertebroplasty. Although the AAOS Board of Directors knew that physicians who favor the procedure might object, its vote to adopt the guideline signaled an unwavering endorsement of the use of evidence-based medicine to evaluate treatment modalities.