Results of a 2025 United States Practice Survey of Orthopaedic Traumatologists

OBJECTIVE: To report on findings from the most recent Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) nationwide survey of orthopaedic trauma surgeons on current practice details. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Orthopaedic Trauma Association approved quadrennial survey. PARTICIPANTS: Orthopaedic trauma surgeons practicing in the United States with one of the following OTA membership types: active, candidate, or clinical. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: A 47-question survey was emailed to OTA members assessing demographics, practice setting, and current compensation. RESULTS: A total of 785/1501 (52%) orthopaedic traumatologists responded. Slightly more than half of respondents practiced in academic settings (51%), with a majority in practice for ≤10 years (47%). For those in private groups, 65% had achieved "partner" status, which generally took 1-3 years (53%) of employment. The majority of surgeons (87%) reported access to a dedicated orthopaedic trauma operating room, providing many surgeons (78%) with access during the daytime on weekdays and weekends, but only 21% with 24-hour access. Surgeons most commonly reported working 51-70 hours per week (64%), with 4-6 nights of call per month (40%), 1 clinic day per week (44%). Seventy-two percent reported more than 75% of their clinical practice was devoted to trauma (72%). More than half of surgeons (59%) received compensation for call. Annual work relative value units (wRVU) and case volumes varied. Typically, respondents had $501,000-$900,000 of their annual base salary guaranteed (62%), and most were eligible for additional revenue via production bonuses (76%). Further insight into clinical characteristics were provided by three subgroup analyses: years in practice, practice setting, and reported gender of surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide updated data into the current landscape of orthopaedic trauma practice in the United States. This information may be useful to guide contract discussions and inform institutional decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.