Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: Fencing is growing rapidly in popularity and competitiveness with fencers beginning at a younger age and competing in more tournaments. Even though fencing has a low risk of time-loss injury, fencers are inevitably going to experience injuries if proper athletic training and prevention does not occur. We aim to describe and compare the lower extremity injuries experienced by fencers that have trained at the highest level in the sport. We hypothesized that athletes who fenced longer would suffer more knee and hip injuries and report lower IKDC and HOS scores.Methods: This is an epidemiology study distributed to members of the U.S national team and Olympic team from 1980 to 2018. The electronic survey included questions regarding age, weapon, number of years fencing, number of national and Olympic teams, injuries on the dominant and nondominant hip and knee, time missed due to injury, and methods for treatment. The survey also included the International Knee Demographic Committee (IKDC) and Hip Outcome Score (HOS).Results: There were 153 national team members between July 1980 and July 2018, 110 with contact information. A total of 77 athletes submitted the survey, consisting of 30 females and 47 males. Female fencers had more hip injuries and lower IKDC and HOS scores than their male counterparts. In total, there were 71 injuries to the dominant (front) knee and 28 injuries to the nondominant (back) knee. There were 32 dominant hip injuries and 5 nondominant hip injuries. Saber fencers reported the most dominant and nondominant hip and knee injuries.Conclusion: The intense, repetitive and asymmetrical movements involved in fencing affect the weight bearing leg and the nondominant leg in all weapons. Special attention should be paid to female fencers as they experience more hip and knee injuries resulting in impaired joint function.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To ascertain the rate and timing of return to play (RTP) and the availability of specific criteria for safe RTP after arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to find studies on arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization. Studies were included if they reported RTP data or rehabilitation protocols and excluded if concomitant procedures influenced the rehabilitation protocol. Rate and timing of RTP, along with rehabilitation protocols, were assessed. Results/UNASSIGNED:This review found 25 studies, including 895 cases, meeting the study's inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (82.7%), with an age range of 14 to 66 years and a follow-up range of 4 to 148.8 months. The overall RTP rate ranged from 62.7% to 100.0%, and 50.0% to 100.0% returned to the same level of play. Among collision athletes, the overall rate of RTP was 80.0% to 100.0%, with 69.2%-100.0% returning to the same level of play. In overhead athletes, the overall rate of RTP was 85.2% to 100.0%, with 55.6% to 100.0% returning to the same level of play. Four studies (128 patients) specifically addressed the timing of RTP, and the range to RTP was 4.3 to 8.6 months. Specific RTP criteria were reported in a majority of studies (60%), with the most reported item being restoration of strength (44%). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:There is a high rate of return to sport after arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization, ranging from 4.3 to 8.6 months after surgery. Return to preinjury level is higher for collision athletes compared with overhead athletes. However, there is inadequate reporting of RTP criteria in the current literature, with no clear timeline for when it is safe to return to sport. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:IV, systematic review of level II to IV studies.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to systematically review and network meta-analyze the current evidence in the literature to ascertain if there is a superior lateral extra-articular augmentation technique in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACL.R) with respect to knee stability, re-rupture rates and functional outcomes. METHODS:The literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing ACL.R to ACL.R + lateral extra-articular augmentation were included. Lateral extra-articular techniques included were anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALL.R), Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, Losee, Maraccaci, and McIntosh. Clinical outcomes were compared between ACL.R alone and the different lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis, with statistical analysis performed using R. The treatment options were ranked using the P-Score. RESULTS:Twenty-eight studies with a total of 2990 patients were included. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold technique had the highest P-Score for ACL re-ruptures and residual pivot-shift. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, and ALL.R all significantly reduced the rate of ACL re-rupture, and residual pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. There was no significant difference between any of the lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques and ACL.R alone. ALL.R had the highest P-Score for return to play, and return to play at pre-injury level. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study established that ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire and ALL.R resulted in significantly lower ipsilateral ACL re-ruptures, as well as reduced pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. Whereas, the other lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques did not reduce pivot-shift and re-rupture. Additionally, functional outcomes and return to play were comparable between those who underwent ACL.R and lateral extra-articular augmentation and ACL.R alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is often indicated in athletes with lateral patellar instability to prevent recurrence and allow for a successful return to play. In this patient population, the ability to return to play is one of the most important clinical outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the characteristics of patients who were unable return to play following MPFL reconstruction. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction and subsequently did not return to play after a minimum of 12-months of follow-up was performed. Patients were evaluated for their psychological readiness to return to sport using the MPFL-Return to Sport after Injury (MPFL-RSI) score, which is a modification of the ACL-RSI score. A MPFL-RSI score > 56 is considered a passing score for being psychologically ready to return to play. Additionally, reasons for not returning to play including Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS), Kujala score, satisfaction, and recurrent instability (including dislocations and subluxations) were evaluated. RESULTS:The study included a total of 35 patients who were unable to return to play out of a total cohort of 131 patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction as treatment for patellar instability. Overall, 60% were female with a mean age of 24.5, and a mean follow-up of 38 months. Nine patients (25.7%) passed the MPFL-RSI benchmark of 56 with a mean overall score of 44.2 ± 21.8. The most common primary reasons for not returning to play were 14 were afraid of re-injury, 9 cited other lifestyle factors, 5 did not return due to continued knee pain, 5 were not confident in their ability to perform, and 2 did not return due to a feeling of instability. The mean VAS score was 1.9 ± 2.3, the mean Kujala score was 82.5 ± 14.6, and the mean satisfaction was 76.9%. Three patients (8.7%) reported experiencing a patellar subluxation event post-operatively. No patient sustained a post-operative patellar dislocation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Following MPFL reconstruction, patients that do not return to play exhibit poor psychological readiness with the most common reason being fear of re-injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

BACKGROUND:With the increasing utilization of patient satisfaction as a metric for clinical care, there is growing interest in techniques that can be used to improve satisfaction in patients undergoing surgery. The purpose of this trial was to assess the impact of day-of-surgery video and phone calls on patient satisfaction. METHODS:We enrolled 251 patients undergoing outpatient orthopaedic surgery with 3 participating surgeons. Surgeons were randomized to 1 of 3 patient communication modalities: no contact (standard of care), phone call, or video call. Several hours following discharge on the day of surgery, the surgeons contacted patients according to their assigned treatment group. At the initial postoperative office visit, satisfaction outcomes were assessed using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care (S-CAHPS) survey and an additional satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS:Fifty-nine (97%) of 61 patients in the no-contact group, 118 (99%) of 119 patients in the phone group, and 71 (100%) of 71 patients in the video group completed follow-up assessment. The S-CAHPS top-box response rate in both the video group (0.86 ± 0.14, p < 0.001) and the phone group (0.84 ± 0.17, p < 0.001) was greater than in the no-contact group (0.68 ± 0.26). When asked to rate satisfaction with overall care, a greater proportion of patients in the video group (85.9%) gave the top-box response compared with both the phone group (71.8%, p = 0.040) and the no-contact group (60.7%, p = 0.002). Among the patients in the video group, 62.0% indicated that they would prefer a video call in future encounters with their surgeon compared with 1.8% of patients in the no-contact group (p < 0.001) and 1.7% of patients in the phone group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Phone and video calls following discharge are an effective way of enhancing patient satisfaction with the clinical care experience as measured by the S-CAHPS survey. In terms of satisfaction with overall care, video calls may be superior to phone calls. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.