4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The Current Practice of Orthopaedic Oncology in North America

Journal

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume 468, Issue 11, Pages 2840-2853

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1413-6

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The field of orthopaedic oncology in North America has been formalized over the past 30 years with the development of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) and fellowship education opportunities. Questions/purposes To characterize current practices we assessed the fellowship education, practice setting, constitution of clinical practice, bone and soft tissue sarcoma treatment volume, perceived challenges and rewards of the career, and the nonclinical activities of orthopaedic oncologists. Methods Members of the MSTS and attendees of the 2009 AAOS-MSTS Specialty Day meeting were invited to participate in a twenty-three question online survey. One hundred and four surgeons including 99 of the 192 (52%) MSTS members completed the online survey. Results Sixty-nine of the 104 (66%) responding surgeons completed a 1-year musculoskeletal oncology fellowship. Thirty-eight (37%) completed an additional orthopaedic subspecialty fellowship. Seventy-four (79%) work in an academic practice and 70 (+/- 16) % of clinical time is spent practicing musculoskeletal oncology. An average of 20 (+/- 16) bone and 40 (+/- 36) soft tissue sarcomas were treated annually. Insufficient institutional support, reimbursement, and emotional stresses were perceived as the most important challenges in a musculoskeletal oncology practice. Sixty-seven (64%) of the surgeons reported serving in a leadership position at the departmental or national level. Conclusions Professional time distribution is similar to other academic orthopaedists. The members of the MSTS are responsible for the treatment of more than two-thirds of bone and soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available