Background:National Football League (NFL) players who undergo anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have been shown to have a lower return to play (RTP) than previously expected. However, RTP in the NFL after revision ACL reconstruction (RACLR) is not well defined.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to determine the RTP of NFL players after RACLR and evaluate factors that predict RTP. Our hypothesis was that more experienced and established players would be more likely to RTP after RACLR.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A total of 24 NFL players who underwent RACLR between 2007 and 2014 were reviewed and evaluated. Return to NFL play, time to return, seasons and games played prior to and after revision surgery, draft status, and demographic data were collected. Overall RTP was determined, and players who did RTP were compared with those unable to RTP. Data were also compared with control players matched for age, position, size, and experience.Results:After RACLR, 79% (19/24) of NFL players returned to NFL regular-season play at an average of 12.6 months. All players who were drafted in the first 4 rounds, played in at least 55 games, or played 4 seasons of NFL play prior to injury were able to RTP. Players drafted in the first 4 rounds of the NFL draft were more likely to RTP than those who were not (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.01-1.00; P = .05). Those who returned to NFL play played in significantly less games and seasons after their injury than before (P = .01 and P = .01, respectively). However, these values did not differ when compared with matched controls (P = .67 and P = .33).Conclusion:NFL players who RTP after RACLR do so at a similar rate but prolonged time period compared with after primary ACL reconstruction. Athletes who were drafted in earlier rounds were more likely to RTP than those who were not. Additionally, player experience prior to injury is an important factor when predicting RTP after RACLR.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The original architects of Medicare modeled the payment system on the existing fee-for-service (FFS) structure that historically dominated the health-insurance market. Under the FFS paradigm, health-care expenditures experienced an exponential rise. In response, the managed care and capitation models of health-care delivery were developed. However, changes in Medicare reimbursement, along with an increasing volume of orthopaedic procedures and escalating implant costs, call into question the cost-effectiveness of this service line. The success of the Medicare Acute Care Episode (ACE) Demonstration Project proved the feasibility of value-based care and ushered in a new era of bundled payment initiatives.

BackgroundFailed internal fixation of intertrochanteric (IT) hip fractures presents a significant challenge in the elderly, osteoporotic population. Conversion total hip arthroplasty (cTHA) and hemiarthroplasty (cHA) are both accepted salvage operations for failed IT fracture fixation, though limited clinical data exist regarding the optimal treatment between these procedures.MethodsA systematic review of 3 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase) was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies that compared clinical or functional outcomes after failed fixation of IT fractures with total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in adult subjects (>18 years of age). Data regarding research design, surgical technique, and clinical or functional outcomes were obtained and analyzed from eligible studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.ResultsSix studies with 188 patients (100, total hip arthroplasty; 88, hemiarthroplasty) met inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between cTHA and cHA for postoperative dislocation, reoperation, infection, intraoperative fractures, postoperative fractures, or stem subsidence. The mean change in Harris Hip Scores was significantly higher (P < .001) in the cTHA group (47.5 ± 4.9) than that in the cHA (38.9 ± 7.2) group at minimum 14-month follow-up.ConclusionsDespite potential advantages of cTHA or cHA for failed IT fractures, there were no differences in complications between either of the salvage procedures. Our analysis found a slight advantage in functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score) for cTHA at a minimum 14-month follow-up. Our study suggests that cTHA and cHA are both effective salvage procedures. Additional prospective studies are warranted to further delineate outcomes after salvage arthroplasty performed for failed IT fracture fixation.

No abstract