Context: 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: 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: All studies related to cannabis use in athletes, including impact on athletic performance or recovery, were included. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: 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: 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.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective/purpose The aim of the study was to assess the options of treatment and their related outcomes for chondral injuries in the hip based on the available evidence whilst highlighting new and innovative techniques. Methods A systematic review of the literature from PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Google Scholar, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) was undertaken from their inception to March 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical outcome studies, prospective/retrospective case series and case reports that described the outcome of cartilage repair technique for the chondral injury in the hip were included. Studies on total hip replacement, animal studies, basic studies, trial protocols and review articles were excluded. Results The systematic review found 21 relevant papers with 596 hips. Over 80% of the included studies were published in or after 2010. Most studies were case series or case reports (18 studies, 85.7%). Arthroscopy was used in 11 studies (52.4%). The minimum follow-up period was six months. Mean age of the participants was 37.2 years; 93.5% of patients had cartilage injuries of the acetabulum and 6.5% of them had injuries of the femoral head. Amongst the 11 techniques described in the systematic review, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and microfracture were the three frequently reported techniques. Conclusion Over ten different techniques are available for cartilage repair in the hip, and most of them have good short-to medium-term outcomes. However, there are no robust comparative studies to assess superiority of one technique over another, and further research is required in this arena.

Purpose 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 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 Level IV.