The Ortho Sipping Scotch

The Ortho Sipping Scotch
The Ortho Sipping Scotch Part 1: Innovation and Ingenuity in Medicine

Narrator: 0:01

Welcome to MedEvidence, where we help you navigate the truth behind medical research with unbiased, evidence-proven facts, powered by ENCORE Research Group and hosted by cardiologist and top medical researcher, Dr. Michael Koren.

Dr. Michael Koren: 0:17

Hello, my name is Dr. Michael Koren and I'm delighted to host another episode of MedEvidence Two Docs Talk, and this is a particular privilege today to have Dr. Garry Kitay join me. Garry and I have known each other for many, many years. Garry is a local orthopedist hand surgeon and today we're going to talk about how an orthopedist views the world of clinical research.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 0:40

Well, Michael, thank you so much for the opportunity and I'm very happy to be here.

Dr. Michael Koren: 0:43

That's great and that's great. So Garry and I have worked on a few projects before, and before we get into that, let's just talk about something that's real. That's what we do in this program. We talk about real things and we're both physicians, but you're a surgeon and I'm an internist and we've had different training and our views of research are different based on that training. But fundamentally there are certain personality types that seem to be attracted to one specialty versus another. And I remember when I was in medical school first year medical school there was a professor that liked to go around the room and determine what your specialty would be, based on his perception of your personality, and he would go by and kind of pick out people, some people he had more trouble with, like me than others. But there's certain types that will be going into psychiatry or maybe people that don't necessarily want to interact with other people so much might be pathologists or people who love kids, maybe pediatricians, or you're interested in women's health, you may become an obstetrician, but surgeons are generally perceived to be people that are very direct, sort of results driven and a little bit macho. You know that's the stereotype whereas intern is some more sort of analytical and thinking through things, maybe long-winded in the decision-making. So let's start with that. Did you have that experience or did that impact your decision to go into orthopedics?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 2:12

Well, for me personally, orthopedics. I relate that somewhat to my father. He owned a hardware store and the bolts and screws and screwdrivers I think that's my personal connection to orthopedics where I use a lot of the same tools that he sold in his store.

Dr. Michael Koren: 2:30

Beautiful. I love it. Yeah, so it maybe helped with some expenses during medical school.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 2:36

That's right. That's right. It was in the same city where Kitay's hardware was.

Dr. Michael Koren: 2:41

Oh, very nice, and where was that?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 2:43

In Manhattan.

Dr. Michael Koren: 2:44

New York City.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 2:45

Ninetieth Street and I was on 168th Street.

Dr. Michael Koren: 2:48

Okay, so not too far, that's exciting.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 2:52

I think that traditionally that's kind of the way people look at surgical versus non-surgical. I think that's changed to some degree. I think that we're all very interested in evidence-based medicine in the surgical fields as well. We want to do things that are proven and to do fact-based treatments for our patients. But I do think that we all, all us physicians, delay our gratification because we all study hard, we all go to medical school, but I think there is maybe a desire, like you said, to see the results a little sometimes quicker, and I think you can do that in a lot of surgical fields, as opposed to it might be a little bit difficult in a lot of the, you know, medical, non-surgical fields.

Dr. Michael Koren: 3:42

Right? And how about the tinkering elements of surgery? Do you think that's important?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 3:46

I think that you have to want to be able to use your hands and be comfortable with that. So I do agree with that, and maybe that's for me. It's a little bit of that hardware connection as well. Sure, Sure.

Dr. Michael Koren: 3:58

Do you think reflect itself on inclinations to get involved in clinical research? So for me, for example, I actually struggled during medical school to decide if I was going to go into surgery or into cardiology. I knew that if I was going to do an internal medicine specialty it would be cardiology, because it's kind of a little bit more surgical, fast-paced act in that sort of way. So I was kind of a hybrid person. But to me I made the decision to do internal medicine because of how rich the statistics were. I was always fascinated with the mathematics and statistics. So I'm curious to see what your thoughts are with regard to that in the orthopedic space, and you personally.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 4:36

Well, first, personally, you know you're what you're exposed to in medical school. So I mean, for me it was things that I love was neuroscience, and I had these I had these instructors called Kandel and Schwartz, sure, yeah.

Dr. Michael Koren: 4:51

Very famous.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 4:52

And they taught the course. You know that was.

Dr. Michael Koren: 4:54

Columbia University yeah.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 4:56

Yeah, and I really loved anatomy, you know, and in the end anatomy won over for me and I just love to, you know, see the structures, expose the nerves, the blood vessels, and that's also why I went more into hand surgery because of actually not trying to avoid those structures but to actually treat those structures. So that was more for me personally, the anatomy thing, the anatomy part of medicine which I love kind of exploring and being part of, and that went over the neuroscience part.

Dr. Michael Koren: 5:31

Got it, got it, yeah. So we're going to look at something that you're working on now, which is a bit of a tinkering type of experiment, and we're going to sort of educate the audience about how you became inspired to look at this particular thing and then get a little bit into the process of how you evaluate that, how you market it, what needs to be marketed specifically under FDA rules, what can be sort of marketed more informally, et cetera. So, to start the conversation, tell us a little bit about some of the stuff you've done in the OR and ideas you've gotten that have been beyond standards of medicine. What are the concepts of how to improve your surgical technique or improve the way we do things?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 6:14

I mean just, to take a step back. There's procedures that all orthopedic surgeons or all hand surgeons do that are a carpal tunnel release, creating a new joint at the base of the thumb. But in the end everybody has their own variations on it because you think what you feel works best for your patients in your hands and there is always different variations and individual inputs and sometimes when you're doing certain procedures you can say, well, I think I can improve on that, and sometimes you'll try and write about that and publish it and sometimes you can even try and prove it's better, but sometimes it's more just what's better for you in your hands. So one thing that I'm always interested in is infection rates and trying to minimize that. So something I'm working on is called a glove gown interface to make sure the gloves stay stable and there's no introduction of potential contaminants onto the field. Another thing that I've worked on that's just coming to market now is something that allows exposure of the hand and there's something we use called hand immobilizers in the OR and I thought that could be improved upon from what I use. So the company that makes the hand immobilizer that's largely used in this country. I worked with them to improve upon that and go from the current model to an improved model.

Dr. Michael Koren: 7:55

Oh nice. Congratulation on that. Very cool. So this gets into a concept that is also a regulatory concept, which is how extreme is the innovation? And so, in my role of running a clinical research company, we're very focused on the regulation and we've certainly done device work. You and I have worked on devices together. Typically, devices have what they call class one, class two and class three indications, and class one is something like very simple, like surgical gloves. So if you decide that instead of being flesh color they should be pink, for whatever reason, then that would be class one. Something that maybe is a little bit more complicated, maybe a type of retractor or something that has a little new element of it, is more or less similar to what you're using, would be something else. And then you get into class three, where you're not getting pretty innovative and devices more and more becoming like drugs, where if it's really complicated or revolutionary, then you have to have pre-market authorization for testing and ultimately prove to the FDA that that device is safe and effective, just like the new drug process, which we call an DA, a new drug application to the FDA. So give us a little bit of flavor for that. So the stuff you're working on is class one, class three. Where do you draw the line so?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 9:22

What I'm working on now. The things I mentioned are external. They're not internal implants, so it is a class one. The other thing I was talking about is part of surgical apparel also class one and often you can expand on it, probably even more, which is, if it's a variation on something that's already been approved, you don't often have to go through the approval process once again because it's just improving on a previously accepted concept.

Dr. Michael Koren: 9:54

And I believe that's called a 510K exemption. So you tell the FDA that you plan on marketing it, but you don't feel that any formal application is required because it's similar to something that's already out there, or a trivial change to something that was already out there that doesn't put patients at any particular risk. Is that fair? Exactly so. For example, if you decided well, I always wondered why the index finger was smaller than the middle finger and I'm going to do a surgery now to change that on all my carpal tunnel repairs, that would be a little bit more revolutionary, I would imagine.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 10:30

Yeah, that would be a bizarre and revolution. But first bizarre.

Dr. Michael Koren: 10:36

Okay, well, sometimes maybe equal size could come in handy in certain occupations. I don't know. But I'm pointing out that if you wanted to do something that was a little bit more outrageous, whatever the reasons, how would you go about that? And that's not necessarily a specific device, although there would probably be something involved that would allow you to achieve those results. I'm just using an extreme example of something to help people understand that you couldn't just go ahead and start marketing something of that nature and then you would have to go through a more formal clinical trial process.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 11:09

So you're talking about, for instance, if you thought there was a benefit for lengthening a digit or something of that matter.

Dr. Michael Koren: 11:17

You said that much better than I did, yeah.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 11:20

Well, and there are times when we do that, when digits are shorter or they've been amputated and you have to so if you're restoring anatomy, we don't have to go through an approval process by that, but if you're looking to alter anatomy, for doing lengthening-.

Dr. Michael Koren: 11:36

But if you're using a device or something to allow that to occur, right.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 11:41

Then you have to show that there's a benefit to it, that you're doing something that's going to help mankind and not do something that's bizarre and potentially hurtful and detrimental. And that's where research and the approval process comes into play and that's where I'd often ask for your help in constructing the study and getting it out and proving the concept's a good one.

Dr. Michael Koren: 12:08

Right, and the purpose of that question is to assure the audience that we have ethical rules for what's considered reasonable. For example, you probably don't even need informed consent if you use a different pair of gloves for a patient, whereas something where you're going to add something, a device to lengthen a digit, would certainly require informed consent and go through a formal scientific and research process.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 12:30

Yeah, these days we use informed consent even in injections. Really we're doing injections. Yeah, we let the patient know and get it.

Dr. Michael Koren: 12:37

So this is our segue, s how everybody what you're working on right now. In our next segment, we're going to delve into it, but is this something that you would get a patient's consent for? Is this something you could do without a patient's consent?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 12:50

Right, this is something to aid in completing a procedure for the patient. I don't get consent to use this device. It's called a hand immobilizer and what it's used for is when the patient's hand is on the table, the fingers tend to curl, especially when the patient is under anesthesia. They don't control their hand and then it's hard to get access to the areas that you want to perform the procedure on.

Dr. Michael Koren: 13:18

This is a very fascinating piece of equipment, and I know that when I came to you about my hand problem, you suggested that you may redesign my hand like this, and so let's talk about that at our next session, okay.

Narrator: 13:32

Thanks for joining the MedEvidence podcast. To learn more, head over to MedEvidence. com or subscribe to our podcast on your favorite podcast platform.

The Ortho Sipping Scotch Part 2: Pioneering Orthopedics and the Complex Ethics of Treating Athletes

Narrator: 0:01

Welcome to MedEvidence, where we help you navigate the truth behind medical research with unbiased, evidence-proven facts, powered by ENCORE Research Group and hosted by cardiologist and top medical researcher, Dr. Michael Koren.

Dr. Michael Koren: 0:16

Hello, I'm Dr. Michael Koren.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 0:19

And I'm Dr. Garry Kitay.

Dr. Michael Koren: 0:21

And Dr. Kitay is joining me in a really fascinating discussion about orthopedics and how people in the orthopedic world look at clinical research and some of the stuff that you personally have been part of, and you showed me this fabulous picture of what you propose my hands should look like, rather than what it looks like now, and I'm a little skeptical, I must say that. But there's actually a rationale behind this versus the other model that you're possibly proposing. So why don't you tell the audience a little bit about what you're doing and why you showed me this hand model?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 0:58

Be happy to. Thank you. So this is called a hand immobilizer. I do quite a bit of hand surgery and when a patient has their hand on the hand surgery table, often they're under anesthesia and the hand is not controlled and the fingers curl up and often the point is to operate on the palm and the digits and with the fingers curled up it's harder to get access Instead of somebody holding those fingers down for you all the time. This is a device that can be used to curl to hold the digits and it can hold it in position so you can get to the palm, but, as you can see, it covers the fingers fairly well and the tips of the fingers, making it hard to access the whole digit, and this is something that I had recognized and thought I could improve upon. So I approached the company that makes this hand immobilizer and together we did improve upon it. Now we have a new product that's come to the market this year.

Dr. Michael Koren: 1:55

And is that the new product here? Yeah, okay, so why don't you show that? Show us the sample of it, show us the sample of that versus the old ones.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 2:01

It's very similar, but you can see that the digits are split and in that way it's easier to secure the end, because sometimes the end of the digit would slip out, and plus you can get access to different portions of the digit. So now, if you just want to secure the end, this is a more secure way. But for instance, you could also bring this down here and have access to the end. You can even use this to just grab the basis of the digits. So in that way it gives more flexibility and more access. And taking a relatively simple concept with an aluminum hand and making the aluminum hand plus just to improve upon things which we're always trying to do in orthopedics, hand surgery and medicine in general, I see Interesting.

Dr. Michael Koren: 2:47

Okay, so I think that's a good explanation and thank you for that, because when you first brought it in, I thought you were going to recommend that you were going to increase the number of fingers on my hands. No I think you have From five to 12. I think you have just the right number. In fact we were talking about maybe five is too many fingers.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 3:02

That's right, that's right. So a lot of times and I had one mentor who always stressed when people had injuries of the index finger not to fret too much because cartoon characters often they have four digits. They have four digits and like Mickey Mouse and he said, look at Mickey Mouse, he does great and he doesn't have that index finger, right?

Dr. Michael Koren: 3:23

Yeah, I've read that cartoon characters only have three or two fingers, so that it saves time in the animation Is that what it's?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 3:30

Yeah, well, I just thought it generally looks too busy. It looks like there's too many. That's true also. Yeah, that's probably part of it, as well Interesting.

Dr. Michael Koren: 3:39

So we talked in the previous session a little bit, and I'll just very briefly repeat it, that there are different levels of complexity of devices that we do innovations on, and this would be considered a level one device, correct Meaning that it's similar to what's already in the market. So there's not much you need to do in terms of FDA clearance. In fact, you just submit a 510K exemption and then you're allowed to market it. But as you get more and more complex, you may get to the point where you actually have to run a clinical trial and get pre-market approval from the FDA. So you were mentioning about whether or not you need to inform consents if you are using those different types of hand immobilizers in the operating room. So why don't you educate us about that?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 4:19

So every patient who's having surgery needs to give consent, and it's our obligation and it's also just good practice to make sure the patient understands as much as they're able to about the procedure and In general, you know the procedures are standard enough where they could be explained and the patient can understand it. Now there are sometimes there are certain problems where you might use a device that's not been used before or what we call as off label, not be used for that product. There might be a certain fracture that the current implants just won't fit very well and you might use an implant, for instance, that's normally used in the ankle and use it in the forearm and that's called in that case. Yeah, that needs to require extra explanation. Get the patient's permission for that and to move in order to move forward.

Dr. Michael Koren: 5:12

Can you always anticipate that, or do you do something in the consent process that's broad based, so you can cover those circumstances?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 5:18

Well, sometimes you can see something and and and. Pretty much be aware of that. But in the consent form it does give some leeway that the patient knows when you're doing the surgery and they're not able to be informed further, that they give you the permission to do what's in their best interest.

Dr. Michael Koren: 5:39

Yeah, now I'm sure you deal with people that have very different expectations in terms of what you'll be doing, personality wise. I'm sure there's some people that want you to freelance and do whatever you can to get the best results, and others might say, just do the minimum that you have to do. So talk to us a little bit about that personality type and how that affects the way you approach things, particularly if it's something that's innovative Right.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 6:07

Talking to me in generalities, I want to do the minimum to get the job done, to get the best job done, and I'll explain that to the patient. And there are sometimes when, if you're doing a certain type of shoulder repair, you just have to be frank I'm not sure you know exactly what we're going to encounter and how we're going to do it, and if it's going to be, you know, if it's going to be able to be completed, and I'll explain it to the patient as well. What we need to often pin down with the patient's expectations is because because you don't want that to be out of line with what the outcome is going to be, and that's often we have to let them know. Yes, you're going to be better, and I sometimes use a baseball analogy. I think I think that this is going to be, you know, analogous to a double, maybe a triple, but it's not going to be a home run, it's not going to. You know, this risk now is not going to be the risk you were. It was when you were born. You're going to have less pain, you're going to be able to play tennis, but it's not going to be just like. So. I think expectations is often what we spend a lot of time having the patient understand.

Dr. Michael Koren: 7:15

Right yeah, and I know that you deal with a lot of high profile patients, such as professional athletes, who probably have extraordinarily high expectations of the procedure and a lot, of, a lot at stake in terms of what the outcome is. So tell us a little bit how you handle those type of folks.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 7:34

Right. So when you're dealing with a professional athlete, especially a local professional, and football players, a local professional the first thing that in Europe and in the docs approach is and you let the patient know that most of the often is I'm not a fan on your doctor, you know you're not here because you want the team to get to the Super Bowl. That would be great. But your, our obligation, of course, is to the patient, and number one I'm not a fan, I'm your doctor and that's my only interest. And then you talk to the patient is I'm interested in what this is going to do to you a day from now, a week from now, a year from now and 10 years from now when you're done with your career. How's it gonna affect you a decade from now? Not just getting you back to the next game, and we go through that. What are you gonna be like? So tomorrow, if we do the procedure, you're not playing tomorrow as opposed to maybe you could play and then deal something at the end of the season and how does that affect you? And we go through that and in the end, we want them to return to play at their highest level of performance with minimal risk and not having any diminution of the outcome over the long term.

Dr. Michael Koren: 8:59

And that's kind of what's drastic. It's gotta be a lot of pressure. So you're dealing with a baseball pitcher or a quarterback and you're doing a surgery on their hand or a finger and they don't perform well, is there pressure on you? Does the whole city hate you because you did a poor job of getting them back to their previous state, right? Do you ever think about that?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 9:20

Well, it is a higher pressure environment. It's something that you mentioned as going to surgery. It's something that I think a lot of surgeons enjoy and trying to get people to that highest level of performance. It's something that I enjoy and I think, without kind of enjoying the pressure, I don't think you really go into surgery for most of us.

Dr. Michael Koren: 9:46

I see Okay, so you are the quarterback, you go in and you revel in the pressure. Yeah, maybe so, and you don't care what the fans' reactions will be if the outcome on the field is as good as the outcome in the operating room.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 10:04

Well, we want it all. We want to be excellent in the operating room, be excellent in the field. We try and get it all. Yeah, Absolutely, absolutely.

Dr. Michael Koren: 10:11

How about in terms of dealing with publicity? That must be another element of treating high profile patients in general, particularly professional athletes.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 10:20

Well, here you know, and I mean, it's all, it's HIPAA. So we never discuss anything, we don't let any, we don't kind of disclose any information to anyone. So generally it's not something that people even know about. There's patients I've treated, you know, this year, this month. Nobody knows about it and of course I don't disclose anything and it's just a private matter between the patient and I.

Dr. Michael Koren: 10:49

Interesting yeah. Do you ever get pressure from coaches or owners or other people in terms of your decision making?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 10:57

So one thing with treating a professional athlete that's different is you're treating more than the athlete. So if you're treating a child, of course as a child, and the parents, if you're treating an athlete, it's often the athlete, the family, the trainer, the head team doc, the agent, the coach, you know. So there's a kind of a lot of different interests, but for the most part you know, like I stress, at the player, it's. You know, I work for you and let's figure out what's the best thing for you.

Dr. Michael Koren: 11:32

Yeah, it can be hard. We had a situation during COVID where the NBA became very interested in the work we were doing with COVID-19 vaccines and I had a number of discussions with executives in the NBA and they broadly wanted to be supportive of the research. And obviously we're leery about the concepts of clinical trials where we are just the independent testing agent and we're interested in objective parameters for seeing whether or not things worked or didn't work. So, for example, if we mentioned something about would vaccinated versus non-vaccinated players have any difference in their performance and whether or not that's something they wanted to look at and they're very leery about it honestly, and I understand why that was their sensibility. But I can imagine that some of those elements of what we do that we consider objective may be a little bit different in the sports world.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 12:29

Well, I would love to have seen that study you know, to have that study done to see how many you know to have those patients and you know what kind of performance they do per. You know by the minutes, by their points per game, and then see what happens after the vaccine. I think that would be fascinating.

Dr. Michael Koren: 12:45

Yeah, and that's my internal medicine thinking was in the same direction. But, unfortunately, the association wasn't really interested in that because of the implications to the athletes and their contracts and other things of that nature. They did have a lot of data, a lot of health data, and they were willing to share that in a de-identified way. And of course, all this could have been done in a de-identified way, but they were concerned that that confidentiality could break down at some point and that would have perhaps negative implications. So it's a tricky area, yeah. Tricky area, but again make it clear that they were very broadly supportive of the research work that we were doing.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 13:27

Essentially. Yeah, that's something I'd love to be involved with. For instance, I mean there's some data on forearm fractures, but you mentioned orthopedics. We need to work a little harder on collecting data. But, forearm fractures and professional football players in general. Once you have one, your career is a year shorter. But it's hard to go back. And what specifically cause it, when the outcomes are generally very good? Why is that? What leads to that shortening of the career? Of course, that's not something we want for our patients.

Dr. Michael Koren: 13:59

Yeah, and sometimes the process of looking at things objectively may seem a little bit awkward to people, and so, for example, if you ask for certain types of testing to be done to professional athlete strictly to look at a medical issue, they might look at a scans at you. To my knowledge, it's really hard to do those sorts of things. Even for performance drugs that we talk a lot about, it's done purely on an anecdotal basis and the complications of it are done in an anecdotal basis. One argument could be that okay, well, why don't we look at safe performance enhancing drugs? Why don't we actually take these things and do them in clinical trials, see if they make a difference and see if there are any downside risks? And that gets into a very different point of view with regard to sports and how science and sports can make a difference, because training methods are certainly looked at in terms of helping athletes do better. But if we asked about a drug, for example, that would help you hit a baseball better, all of a sudden we're talking about cheating.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 15:11

Yes.

Dr. Michael Koren: 15:12

And so it's a very different mentality than other ways of improving performance.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 15:17

Yeah, just mentioning performance enhancing drugs, that is something that is a question we'll often ask, because if something like steroids is used, that generally can negatively impact the outcome, especially if it's a soft tissue injury. So that is something that we know can adversely affect the athlete after injury.

Dr. Michael Koren: 15:41

Yeah, so I remember when I was taking testing for medical school, I read an article that different foods prior to testing were looked at in terms of whether or not they improved your test scores, and the only thing that was proven to work was albumin. According to this result, and I always wondered why we didn't do more of that. Maybe just a pure protein substance that you ingest would help your concentration compared to something that was high in carbohydrates. Was chicken soup tested? Well, that's a good question, but why? not why not? Why don't we do randomized studies? And again, we could de-identify things and look at people taking the SATs, for example, take 1,000 people and give them one diet, another 1,000 randomized to another diet, and see what makes a difference. Yeah, that type of research would be fascinating. It could help people. But it's not done because of the sense of cheating. So interesting area.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 16:39

Yeah, I don't know if it's. I could see that with certain performance enhancing drugs that sometimes are used by students now commonly in colleges and sometimes at the high school level, but for things that are legal foods I'd be very interested in that?

Dr. Michael Koren: 16:56

Yeah. Well, there are ADHD drugs that are felt to improve performance, but they're given because you have a diagnosis. But you need to have a diagnosis to improve performance, right? They?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 17:11

are given for diagnosis or illicitly.

Dr. Michael Koren: 17:14

Yeah, exactly, that's right, so I'm sure you have a lot of those discussions with your professional athletes. Obviously it's all confidential. You don't have to disclose that, nor would I recommend that you do, but that is depending on how you look at it. You can make the argument that some of these things should be subjected to the rules of clinical research, and if there is a nutrient or a supplement that enhances performance and it doesn't have downside risk, why not?

Dr. Garry Kitay: 17:42

For sure I agree, especially now you see so many things that are advertised on television that claim to do so many things Right?

Dr. Michael Koren: 17:48

Right, they're unproven.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 17:50

Yeah, let's see the proof. Okay, and I'd love to have more clinical research and I would like that to direct me and my diet to improve my performance.

Dr. Michael Koren: 18:01

Well, with that in mind, we're going to do a little experiment between the two of us in our next session. Okay, and we're going to reproduce a very, very famous experiment called the Lady Tasting Tea Experiment. Okay, and we're going to call it the Ortho Sipping Scotch Experiment.

Dr. Garry Kitay: 18:19

Ortho, ortho and cardiologist.

Dr. Michael Koren: 18:22

There you go, okay, well you're going to be the actual test subject and I'm going to be the research heart in this particular case. Okay.

Narrator: 18:28

Thanks for joining the MedEvidence podcast. To learn more, head over to MedEvidence.com.

The Ortho Sipping Scotch Part 3: Laughter and Libations in the Lab Orthopedic Advances and Scotch Studies

When paths converge in the realm of medicine, the result can be nothing short of extraordinary. Discover the serendipitous journey of Dr. Garry Kitay, an esteemed orthopedic and hand surgeon, whose early exposure to the nuts and bolts of his father's hardware store set the stage for a career in the tactile world of orthopedics. In a revealing conversation, Dr. Michael Koren and Dr. Garry Kitay stitch together the tapestry of clinical research and personal calling, unraveling how a love for statistics and mathematics shepherded Dr. Koren's  car ology practice while Dr. Kitay's affinity for anatomy and hands-on healing carved out his surgical niche. Their discussion peels back the layers on the immediate satisfaction of surgical successes as opposed to the patient wait-and-see of internal medicine, offering a rare glimpse into the passions that pulse through the veins of healthcare professionals.

Step inside the meticulous framework of medical device regulation and witness the birth of innovation through the lens of the FDA's classification system. We dissect the distinctions between class one, two, and three devices, illuminating the pivotal role of clinical trials in the journey from concept to patient care. With the introduction of the hand immobilizer, a deceptively simple class one device poised to redefine surgical support, we navigate the ethical maze of informed consent and the gratifying challenges that accompany the design and implementation of medical advancements. Join us as we unravel the complexities of device innovation and patient care, all the while championing the collaborative spirit that drives medicine forward.
 

Check out the Full Series:

Part 1: Innovation and Ingenuity in Medicine Release January 31, 2024

Take Home Talking Points:
✋Orthopedic Surgeon's Innovations in Medicine

✋Regulation and Innovation in Medical Devices

Part 2: Pioneering Orthopedics and the Complex Ethics of Treating Athletes Release February 7, 2024

✋Managing Hand Immobilizers and Patient Expectations

✋Pressure and Research in Sports Medicine

Part 3: Laughter and Libations in the Lab Orthopedic Advances and Scotch Studies Release February 14, 2024

Be a part of advancing science by participating in clinical research

Recording Date: January 17, 2024
Powered by ENCORE Research Group
Music: Storyblocks - Corporate Inspired