ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Safe Harbors to the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute in Orthopedics: A Rapid Review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Orthopedic surgery relies on complex collaborations across ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), device industries, and value based care models. However, a lack of specialty-specific guidance leaves orthopedic surgeons vulnerable to Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) violations. This review maps how legal safe harbors apply directly to modern orthopedic business arrangements. Objective: The purpose of this review is to summarize the federal Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors most relevant to orthopedic practice, clarify how they apply to common orthopedic business arrangements, identify high-risk arrangements in orthopedic practice, and to demonstrate practical compliance strategies. Methods: A rapid review of PubMed, PMC, and Google Scholar was conducted from inception to October 29, 2025. This search was supplemented with official federal materials, Office of Inspector General (OIG) advisory opinions, and Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement actions to synthesize a narrative compliance framework for orthopedic practice. Results: Out of 123 screened records, 17 sources were used to explore the AKS in terms of orthopedic practice. 18 additional sources were included to supplement this analysis. This study identified gray zones in orthopedics: consulting agreements, royalty arrangements, ASC investment terms, and industry funded travel. High-risk arrangements are often targeted by regulators when compensation is high, as demonstrated by recent multi-million dollar DOJ settlements. Conclusion: AKS safe harbors provide vital protection but demand meticulous, ongoing documentation of compliance. As value-based care expands, orthopedic surgeons must ensure that modern, integrated business models are structured strictly around clinical justification and independent medical judgment, actively insulating patient care from personal financial incentives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.