No abstract

Background: Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a novel technique involving the use of a cuff/tourniquet system positioned around the proximal end of an extremity to maintain arterial flow while restricting venous return. Purpose: To analyze the available literature regarding the use of BFR to supplement traditional resistance training in healthy athletes. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. From November to December 2018, studies that examined the effects of BFR training in athletes were identified using PubMed and OVID Medline. Reference lists from selected articles were analyzed for additional studies. The inclusion criteria for full article review were randomized studies with control groups that implemented BFR training into athletes’ resistance training workouts. Case reports and review studies were excluded. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, study design, training protocol, occlusive cuff location/pressure, maximum strength improvements, muscle size measurements, markers of sports performance (eg, sprint time, agility tests, and jump measurements), and other study-specific markers (eg, electromyography, muscular torque, and muscular endurance). Results: The initial search identified 237 articles. After removal of duplicates and screening of titles, abstracts, and full articles, 10 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Seven of 9 (78%) studies found a significant increase in strength associated with use of BFR training as compared with control; 4 of 8 (50%) noted significant increases in muscle size associated with BFR training; and 3 of 4 (75%) reported significant improvements in sport-specific measurements in the groups that used BFR training. Occlusive cuff pressure varied across studies, from 110 to 240 mm HG. Conclusion: The literature appears to support that BFR can lead to improvements in strength, muscle size, and markers of sports performance in healthy athletes. Combining traditional resistance training with BFR may allow athletes to maximize athletic performance and remain in good health. Additional studies should be conducted to find an optimal occlusive pressure to maximize training improvements. Registration: CRD42019118025 (PROSPERO).

No abstract

Background: Medial epicondylitis (ME) is characterized as an overuse injury resulting in pathological alterations of the common flexor tendon at the elbow. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has recently become of interest in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions as an alternative to operative management. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of recalcitrant type 1 ME after treatment with either PRP or surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: To compare the 2 methods of treatment, we performed a retrospective review of 33 patients diagnosed with type 1 ME from 2006 to 2016 with a minimum clinical follow-up of 1 year who had failed an initial nonoperative treatment program of injections, medication, topical creams, and/or physical therapy. Overall, 15 patients were treated with a series of 2 leukocyte-rich PRP injections, and 18 patients were treated with surgery. Outcome measures included time to pain-free status, time to full range of motion (ROM), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES). Each patient had at least 1-year follow-up. They were then contacted by telephone to determine final scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Unsuccessful outcomes were determined by the Nirschl grading system and failure to reach pain-free status, achieve baseline ROM, or return to previous activity. Results: The mean final follow-up was 3.9 years. A statistically significant improvement was noted in both time to full ROM (42.3 days for PRP vs 96.1 days for surgery; P < .01) and time to pain-free status (56.2 days for PRP vs 108.0 days for surgery; P < .01). Successful outcomes were observed in 80% of patients treated with PRP and 94% of those treated operatively ( P = .37). No significant difference was found in return-to-activity rates, overall successful outcomes, MEPS scores, or OES scores. Conclusion: In this case series, the use of PRP showed clinically similar outcomes to those of surgery in recalcitrant type 1 ME. PRP can be considered as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of recurrent ME, with an earlier time to full ROM and time to pain-free status compared with surgery.

Background:Various techniques have been described for surgical treatment of recalcitrant medial epicondylitis (ME). No single technique has yet to be proven the most effective.Purpose:To evaluate the clinical outcomes of a double-row repair for ME.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A retrospective review was performed on 31 consecutive patients (33 elbows) treated surgically for ME with a minimum clinical follow-up of 2 years. All patients were initially managed nonoperatively with anti-inflammatories, steroid injections, topical creams, and physical therapy. Outcome measures at final follow-up included visual analog scale (VAS) scores (scale, 0-10), time to completely pain-free state, time to full range of motion (FROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS), and Oxford Elbow Scores (OES). Patients were contacted by telephone to determine current functional outcomes, pain, activity, functional limitations, and MEPS/OES. Successful and unsuccessful outcomes were determined by the Nirschl grading system.Results:The mean clinical and telephone follow-up periods were 2.3 and 3.6 years, respectively, and 31 of 33 (94%) elbows were found to have a successful outcome. The mean VAS improvement was 4.9 points, from 5.8 preoperatively to 0.9 postoperatively (P < .001). The mean MEPS and OES at final follow-up were 95.1 and 45.3, respectively. The mean time to pain-free state and time to FROM were 87.4 and 96 days, respectively. Unlike prior studies, no difference in outcome was found between those with and without ulnar neuritis preoperatively (P = .67).Conclusion:A double-row repair is effective in decreasing pain and improving the overall function for recalcitrant ME. Uniquely, the presence of preoperative ulnar neuritis was associated with higher patient-reported preoperative pain scores but not with poor outcomes using this protocol.

Purpose: To systematically review available literature comparing location and safety of two common anteromedial portals with nearby neurovascular structures in cadaveric models and to determine the correct positioning and preparation of the joint prior to elbow arthroscopy. Methods:The review was devised in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of original, cadaveric studies performed by experienced surgeons on male or female elbows evaluating anteromedial portal placement with regards to proximity of the arthroscope to neurovascular structures. Exclusion criteria consisted of case reports, clinical series, non-English

Background Little is known about the diagnostic accuracy of Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for critical illness among emergency department (ED) patients with and without infection. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for critical illness in ED patients. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of ED patients at an urban academic hospital. Standardized chart abstraction was performed on a random sample of all adult ED medical patients admitted to the hospital during a 1-year period, excluding repeat visits, transfers, ED deaths, and primary surgical or psychiatric admissions. The binary composite outcome of critical illness was defined as ≥24 hours in intensive care or in-hospital death. Presumed infection was defined as receiving antibiotics within 48 hours of admission. SIRS criteria were calculated using ED triage vital signs and initial white blood cell count. Results We studied 1,152 patients; 39% had SIRS, 27% had presumed infection, and 23% had critical illness (2% had in-hospital mortality, 22% had ≥24 hours in intensive care). Of patients with SIRS, 38% had presumed infection. Of patients without SIRS, 21% had presumed infection. The sensitivity of SIRS criteria for critical illness was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46%–58%) in all patients, 66% (95% CI 56%–75%) in patients with presumed infection, and 43% (95% CI 36%–51%) in patients without presumed infection. Conclusions SIRS at ED triage, as currently defined, has poor sensitivity for critical illness in medical patients admitted from the ED.

Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow, involves degeneration of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon and is often self-limiting, with surgery reserved for recalcitrant cases. Surgical management of tennis elbow consists primarily of either debridement alone or debridement with repair. Surgical repair is often performed using either a suture or a suture anchor. Good outcomes have been reported using standard repair methods; however, complications exist. Complications include potential loss of grip strength with debridement alone, as well as soft-tissue irritation caused by a prominent suture or knot stack after suture repair and suture anchor techniques. We describe a technique for debridement and repair of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon to the lateral epicondyle of the humerus using a knotless suture anchor, allowing for a watertight anatomic repair, maximum preservation of grip strength, and absence of a knot stack and resultant suture prominence.