No abstract

No abstract

Background:The optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol following repair of complete proximal hamstring tendon ruptures is the subject of ongoing investigation, with a need for more standardized regimens and evidence-based modalities.Purpose:To assess the variability across proximal hamstring tendon repair rehabilitation protocols published online by United States (US) orthopaedic teaching programs.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:Online proximal hamstring physical therapy protocols from US academic orthopaedic programs were reviewed. A web-based search using the search term complete proximal hamstring repair rehabilitation protocol provided an additional 14 protocols. A comprehensive scoring rubric was developed after review of all protocols and was used to assess each protocol for both the presence of various rehabilitation components and the point at which those components were introduced.Results:Of 50 rehabilitation protocols identified, 35 satisfied inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Twenty-five protocols (71%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing: 12 (34%) prescribed knee bracing, 8 (23%) prescribed hip bracing, and 5 (14%) did not specify the type of brace recommended. Fourteen protocols (40%) advised immediate nonweightbearing with crutches, while 16 protocols (46%) permitted immediate toe-touch weightbearing. Advancement to full weightbearing was allowed at a mean of 7.1 weeks (range, 4-12 weeks). Most protocols (80%) recommended gentle knee and hip passive range of motion and active range of motion, starting at a mean 1.4 weeks (range, 0-3 weeks) and 4.0 weeks (range, 0-6 weeks), respectively. However, only 6 protocols (17%) provided specific time points to initiate full hip and knee range of motion: a mean 8.0 weeks (range, 4-12 weeks) and 7.8 weeks (range, 0-12 weeks), respectively. Considerable variability was noted in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, stretching, proprioception, and cardiovascular exercises. Fifteen protocols (43%) required completion of specific return-to-sport criteria before resuming training.Conclusion:Marked variability is found in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across the various complete proximal hamstring repair rehabilitation protocols published online. This finding mirrors the variability of proposed rehabilitation protocols in the professional literature and represents an opportunity to improve patient care.

Background:Investigations specifically delineating the safest and most efficacious components of physical therapy after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction of the elbow are lacking. As such, while a number of recommendations regarding postoperative therapy have been published, no validated rehabilitation guidelines currently exist.Purpose:To assess the variability of rehabilitation protocols utilized by orthopaedic residency programs in the United States (US) and those described in the scientific literature.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:Online UCL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols from US orthopaedic programs and from the scientific literature were reviewed. A comprehensive scoring rubric was developed to assess each protocol for the presence of various rehabilitation components as well as the timing of their introduction.Results:Overall, 22 protocols (14%) from 155 US Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) orthopaedic programs and 8 protocols published in the scientific literature detailing UCL reconstruction postoperative rehabilitation were identified and reviewed. After reconstruction, the majority of ERAS and review article protocols (77% and 88%, respectively) advised immediate splinting at 90° of elbow flexion. The mean time to splint discontinuation across all protocols was 2.0 weeks (range, 1-3 weeks). There was considerable variability in elbow range of motion recommendations; however, most protocols detailed goals for full extension and full flexion (>130°) at a mean 5.3 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks) and 5.5 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks), respectively. Significant diversity in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, proprioceptive, and throwing exercises was also apparent. Thirteen ERAS (59%) and 7 review article (88%) protocols specifically mentioned return to competition as an endpoint. ERAS protocols permitted return to competition significantly earlier than review article protocols (29.6 vs 39.0 weeks, respectively; P = .042).Conclusion:There is notable variability in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across a small number of protocols available online. While our understanding of postoperative rehabilitation for UCL reconstruction evolves, outcome-based studies focused on identifying clinically beneficial modalities and metrics are necessary to enable meaningful standardization.

Background:The P value is a statistical tool used to assess the statistical significance of clinical trial outcomes in orthopedic surgery. However, the P value does not evaluate research quality or clinical significance. The Fragility Index (FI) is an alternative statistical method that can be used to assess the quality and significance of clinical research and is defined as the number of patients in a study intervention group necessary to convert an outcome from statistically significant to statistically insignificant or vice versa. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the statistical robustness of clinical trials regarding shoulder arthroplasty using the FI. The secondary goal was to identify trial characteristics associated greater statistical fragility. Methods: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials in shoulder arthroplasty was performed. The FI was calculated for all dichotomous, categorical study outcomes discussed in the identified studies. Descriptive statistics and the Pearson correlation coefficient were used to evaluate all studies and characterize associations between study variables. Results: A total of 13 randomized controlled trials were identified and evaluated; these trials had a median sample size of 47 patients (mean, 54 patients; range, 26-102 patients) and a median of 7 patients (mean, 5.8 patients; range, 0-14 patients) lost to follow-up. The median FI was 6 (mean, 5; range, 1-11), a higher FI than what has been observed in other orthopedic subspecialties. However, the majority of outcomes (74.4%) had an FI that was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up, and most outcomes (89.7%) were statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Randomized controlled trials in shoulder arthroplasty have comparable statistical robustness to the literature in other orthopedic surgical subspecialties. We believe that the inclusion of the FI in future comparative studies in the shoulder arthroplasty literature will allow surgeons to better assess the statistical robustness of future research.

Background: Youth athletes are starting sports earlier and training harder. Intense, year-round demands are encouraging early sports specialization under the perception that it will improve the odds of future elite performance. Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that early specialization is associated with increased risk of injury and burnout. This is especially true of pediatric and adolescent baseball players. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this investigation was to analyze national injury trends of youth baseball players. We hypothesized that while the total number of baseball injuries diagnosed over the past decade would decrease, there would be an increase in adolescent elbow injuries seen nationally. A further hypothesis was that this trend would be significantly greater than other injuries to the upper extremity and major joints. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: Injury data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a United States Consumer Product Safety Commission database, were analyzed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2016, for baseball players aged ≤18 years. Data were collected on the location of injury, diagnosis, and mechanism of injury. Results: Between 2006 and 2016, an estimated 665,133 baseball injuries occurred nationally. The mean age of the injured players was 11.5 years. The most common injuries diagnosed included contusions (26.8%), fractures (23.6%), and strains and sprains (18.7%). Among major joints, the ankle (25.6%) was most commonly injured, followed by the knee (21.3%), wrist (19.2%), elbow (17.7%), and shoulder (16.2%). The incidence of the ankle, knee, wrist, and shoulder injuries decreased over time, while only the incidence of elbow injuries increased. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that the increasing incidence of elbow injuries was statistically significant against the decreasing trend for all baseball injury diagnoses, as well as ankle, knee, wrist, hand, and finger injuries ( P < .05). Additionally, the only elbow injury mechanism that increased substantially over time was throwing. Conclusion: The current investigation found that while the incidence of baseball injuries sustained by youth players is decreasing, elbow pathology is becoming more prevalent and is more commonly being caused by throwing. Given that the majority of elbow injuries among adolescent baseball players are overuse injuries, these findings underscore the importance of developing strategies to continue to ensure the safety of these youth athletes.

Background: The increase in ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) elbow reconstructions over the past 20 years has affected younger athletes more than any other age group. Although return to play and postoperative performance have been extensively studied in professional baseball players, outcomes in collegiate baseball players are less known. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to characterize return to play and changes in performance after UCL reconstruction (UCLR) in collegiate baseball players. We hypothesized that collegiate baseball players would have similar return-to-play rates compared with professional athletes and no significant differences in performance compared with matched controls. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Collegiate athletes undergoing UCLR by a single surgeon were identified. Postoperatively, individual collegiate career paths were analyzed through use of publicly available data from team websites, injury reports, and press releases. Data obtained included time to return to competition, number of collegiate seasons played after surgery, total games started and played, seasonal wins, losses, saves, innings played, hits, earned run average (ERA), home runs, shutouts, strikeouts, walks, and walks plus hit per inning pitched (WHIP). The UCLR group was compared with a matched control group of collegiate pitchers without elbow injury. Results: Of the 58 collegiate baseball players analyzed (mean ± SD age, 19.95 ± 1.19 years), 84.5% returned to play at the collegiate level. Players returned to competition at 16.98 ± 6.16 months postoperatively and competed for 1.60 ± 0.84 seasons postoperatively. In terms of career longevity, 81.0% of collegiate pitchers either completed their collegiate eligibility or remained on active rosters, and 2 players (4.1%) ultimately played at the professional level after UCLR. Compared with a matched cohort, the UCLR group had no significant differences in collegiate pitching performance statistics after surgery. Conclusion: College baseball players returned to play at a rate comparable with the rate published in prior literature on professional pitchers and often completed their collegiate playing eligibility postoperatively. Compared with controls, the UCLR group had no statistically significant differences in pitching performance postoperatively. Further studies are needed to determine the exact reasons why college players retire despite having endured extensive surgical and postoperative rehabilitation processes related to UCLR. Younger populations are experiencing elbow injuries at an increasing rate secondary to increased workloads at the amateur level. As these athletes matriculate into the collegiate ranks, they are at continued risk of sustaining UCL injury, and little explicit information is available on their prospects of return to play and career longevity after UCLR.

Background:Youth sports specialization has become more prevalent despite consequences such as increased injury rates and burnout. Young athletes, coaches, and parents continue to have misconceptions about the necessity of sports specialization, giving athletes the encouragement to focus on a single sport at a younger age.Purpose:To characterize the motivations for specialization and determine when elite athletes in various individual and team sports made the decision to specialize.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A Likert-style survey was developed and distributed to athletes from two National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I institutions. The survey’s Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 6.3. Statistical analysis was performed via the Student t test, where a P value less than .05 was considered significant.Results:A total of 303 athletes with a mean ± SD age of 19.9 ± 1.52 years across 19 sports were surveyed; 94.7% of specialized athletes had previously played another organized sport prior to college, and 45% of athletes had played multiple sports up to age 16 years. The mean age of specialization was 14.9 years, with a significant difference between athletes competing in team (15.5 years) and individual (14.0 years) sports (P = .008). Males in individual sports specialized earlier than those in team sports (P ≤ .001). Nearly one-fifth (17.4%) of athletes reported specializing at age 12 years or earlier. Personal interest, skill level, time constraints, and potential scholarships were the most important reasons for specialization overall. For individual sports, the motivations for specialization were similar, but collegiate (P < .001) or professional (P < .001) ambitions were significantly larger contributing factors.Conclusion:Early sports specialization is uncommon among NCAA Division I athletes for most team sports, whereas individual sports tend to have athletes who specialize earlier and are more motivated by professional and collegiate goals. This study characterized the timing of specialization among elite athletes, providing a basis for understanding the motivations behind youth sports specialization. Physicians should be prepared to discuss the misconception that early sports specialization is necessary or common among most team-focused collegiate-level athletes. Knowing the motivations for sports specialization will guide clinicians in their discussions with youth athletes.