Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the surgical techniques, indications outcomes and complications for pediatric patients (≤ 19 years old) undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS:The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from data inception to March 14, 2019 for articles addressing surgery for pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. RESULTS:Overall 24 studies, with a total of 688 patients (696 shoulders) and a mean age of 16.6 ± 2.5 years met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 49 ± 26 months. The majority (59%) of studies only offered shoulder stabilization procedures to patients with more than one shoulder dislocation, however, three studies reported operating on pediatric patients after first time dislocations. Of the included patients 525 had arthroscopic Bankart repair (78%), 75 had open Bankart repair (11%), 34 had modified Bristow (5%), and 26 had Latarjet (4%) procedures. The overall complication rate was 26%. Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair experienced the highest recurrence rate of 24%. There were no significant differences in recurrent instability (n.s.) or loss of external rotation (n.s.) in pediatric patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to open Latarjet. Patients had a 95% rate of return to sport at any level (i.e. preinjury level or any level of play) postoperatively (95%). CONCLUSIONS:Pediatric patients are at high risk of recurrent instability after surgical stabilization. The majority of pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Most studies recommend surgical stabilization only after more than one dislocation. However, given the high rates of recurrence with non-operative management, it may be reasonable to perform surgery at a first-time dislocation, particularly in those with other risk factors for recurrence. With the current evidence and limited sample sizes, it is difficult to directly compare the surgical interventions and their post-operative efficacy (i.e. re-dislocation rates or range of motion). There was an overall high rate of return to sport after surgical stabilization at final follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The prevalence of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH) in athletes can be as high as 75%. For elite athletes diagnosed with LDH, return to play (RTP) is a major concern, and thus comparing surgical with nonoperative care is essential to guide practitioners and athletes, not just in terms of recovery rates but also speed of recovery. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an update on RTP outcomes for elite athletes after lumbar discectomy versus nonoperative treatment of LDHs. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:A search of the literature was conducted using 3 online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) to identify pertinent studies. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:Yielded studies were screened according to the inclusion criteria. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review with meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION/METHODS:Relevant data were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed comparing RTP rate for all comparative studies. RESULTS:2, 71%). The mean time to RTP for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy was 5.19 months (range 1.00-8.70 months), and 4.11 months (range 3.60-5.70 months) for those treated conservatively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was no significant difference in RTP rate between athletes treated with operative or nonoperative management of LDHs, nor did operative management have a faster time to RTP. Athletes should consider the lack of difference in RTP rate in addition to the potential risks associated with spinal surgery when choosing a treatment option. Future randomized controlled trials are needed on this topic to allow for high-powered conclusions.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this review is to quantify the landscape of current clinical trials ongoing for therapies in the treatment of COVID-19. A secondary purpose is to examine the relationship between public and scientific interests in potential therapies for COVID-19. METHODS:A systematic search of clinicaltrials.gov was undertaken on April 22, 2020, to identify all currently registered clinical trials investigating potential therapies for patients with COVID-19. Public interest in the various therapies was quantified utilizing Google Trends. Public interest in hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine was plotted against the cumulative number of active clinical trials evaluating antimalarials as potential COVID-19 therapies over time. RESULTS:There were 341 interventional studies and 208 different therapies actively registered on clinicaltrials.gov whose primary aim is the treatment of COVID-19. The median sample size was 120 patients (range 4-6000) with 154 (45%) trials reporting a planned sample size of 100 patients or less. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.76, p = 0.01) between the number of registered clinical trials and the public interest in the top ten proposed therapies. Following the spike in public interest, the average number of new trials increased tenfold with respect to antimalarial therapies. CONCLUSIONS:The relatively small sample sizes and the number of independent trials investigating similar therapies are concerning. Resources may not be being allocated based on scientific merit and may be driven by public consciousness and speculation. Moving forward, a concerted effort focused on implementing large, well-coordinated and carefully designed multi-armed clinical trials will help to ensure that the most promising therapeutic options are rigorously studied and clinically meaningful results produced.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess the literature on indications, outcomes, and complications in pediatric patients undergoing all-epiphyseal (AE) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS:PubMed, Medline, and Embase were searched for literature evaluating AE ACLR in pediatric patients. All included studies were assessed for quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Descriptive statistics are presented where applicable. RESULTS:Overall, 17 studies comprising 545 patients, with a mean age of 12.0 ± 1.2 (range 8-19) met the inclusion criteria. The graft choices in this systematic review included hamstring tendon autografts (75.4%, n = 403), quadriceps tendon autograft (6.2%, n = 33), Achilles tendon allograft (3.6%, n = 19) and posterior tibialis tendon allograft in one patient (0.2%, n = 1). Time of return-to-sport ranged from 8 to 22 months. Postoperative subjective IKDC scores were above 90 points. The rate of return-to-sport after AE ACLR was 93.2% (n = 219/235) and 77.9% (n = 142/183) of patients returned to sport at pre-injury level. The overall complication rate was 9.8% (n = 53/545) with the most common complication being ACL re-rupture (5.0%; n = 27/545). Only 1.5% (n = 8/545) of patients demonstrated growth disturbances. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the AE ACLR technique can achieve good postoperative functional outcomes while notably minimizing the incidence of primary issue of physeal disruption and potential associated leg-length discrepancies. AE ACLR should be considered in pediatric patients with at least 2 years of skeletal growth remaining based on radiographic bone age to minimize the impact of growth-related complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV (Systematic Review of Level III and IV evidence).

BACKGROUND:Lower trapezius (LT) transfers were originally described to restore external rotation (ER) in the management of brachial plexus palsy; however, there is recent interest in the role of this transfer to restore shoulder function, specifically ER, in patients with a massive irreparable rotator cuff tear (RCT). The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the current literature pertaining to LT transfers, including biomechanics, techniques, and clinical outcomes for patients with brachial plexus palsy and massive RCTs. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for biomechanical and clinical studies, as well as technique articles. Four biomechanical studies reported on moment arms, range of motion (ROM), and force vectors. Seven clinical studies reported postoperative ROM and functional outcomes, and weighted mean improvements in ROM were calculated. RESULTS:Overall, 18 studies were included, and then subdivided into 3 themes: biomechanical, technique, and clinical. Biomechanical studies comparing LT and latissimus dorsi (LD) transfers observed an overall larger moment arm in abduction and ER in adduction for the LT transfer, with similar results in forward elevation. Clinical studies noted significant improvement in shoulder function following the LT transfer, including ROM and functional outcome scores. There were several described techniques for performing the LT transfer, including arthroscopically assisted and open approaches, and the use of both allograft and autograft augmentation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that the LT transfer is generally safe, and the clinical and biomechanical data to date support the use of the LT transfer for restoration of function in these challenging patient populations.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Horizontal cleavage tears of the meniscus (HCTs) are primarily degenerative in nature, and, however, can be the result of trauma. Such tears account for 12-35% of all tear patterns and can be treated by partial meniscectomy or arthroscopic repair. The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the outcomes and complications for patients undergoing the surgical treatment of HCTs. METHODS:This review has been conducted according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from data inception to December 30, 2018 for articles addressing the surgical treatment of HCTs. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively. RESULTS:Overall, 23 studies were identified, comprising of 702 patients (708 knees) with a mean age of 36.6 ± 9.9 years and a mean follow-up of 33.6 ± 19.6 months. The majority of patients were treated with a partial meniscectomy (59.0%), followed by repair (32.8%) and total meniscectomy (8.2%). Both meniscectomy and repair patients had improvements which surpassed minimal clinically important differences with regard to clinical (e.g. pain, function, daily living) and radiographic outcomes. The overall complication rate was 5.1%, primarily involving patients undergoing meniscal repair (12.9% of all knees undergoing a repair). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although meniscal repair theoretically may provide improvement in biomechanical loading, patients undergoing repair had higher complication rates than those undergoing partial meniscectomy. Clinicians should consider the available implants in determining which tear patterns to repair and future studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate complications (e.g. secondary meniscal procedures) as well as the potential for delay in the development of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Cannabis use has increased, in large part due to decriminalization. Despite this increase in usage, it remains unclear what proportion of athletes use cannabis and what effect it has on athletic performance and recovery. OBJECTIVE:To systematically review cannabis use among athletes, including epidemiology, effect on performance and recovery, and regulations for use in sport. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were queried from database inception through November 15, 2018. A hand search of policies, official documents, and media reports was performed for relevant information. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:All studies related to cannabis use in athletes, including impact on athletic performance or recovery, were included. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION/METHODS:Demographic and descriptive data of included studies relating to epidemiology of cannabis use in athletes were extracted and presented in weighted means or percentages where applicable. RESULTS:Overall, 37 studies were included, of which the majority were cross-sectional studies of elite and university athletes. Among 11 studies reporting use among athletes (n = 46,202), approximately 23.4% of respondents reported using cannabis in the past 12 months. Two studies found a negative impact on performance, while another 2 studies found no impact. There was no literature on the influence of cannabis on athletic recovery. Across athletic organizations and leagues, there is considerable variability in acceptable thresholds for urine tetrahydrocannabinol levels (>15 to 150 ng/mL) and penalties for athletes found to be above these accepted thresholds. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, these results suggest that approximately 1 in 4 athletes report using cannabis within the past year. Based on the available evidence, cannabis does not appear to positively affect performance, but the literature surrounding this is generally poor. Given the variability in regulation across different sport types and competition levels, as well as the growing number of states legalizing recreational cannabis use, there is a need to improve our understanding of the effects of cannabis use on the athlete and perhaps adopt a clearer and overarching policy for the use of cannabis by athletes in all sports and at all levels.