No abstract

ObjectiveTo examine the current evidence regarding return-to-play (RTP) and performance after Achilles tendon rupture in elite athletes treated with operative intervention.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesPublished sources identified through a PubMed search of elite athletes, defined as professional or division one collegiate athletes in baseball, basketball, American football or soccer.MethodsOur search yielded a total of 2402 studies, with 13 studies fulfilling the study criteria of reporting elite athletes with objective measures of their athletic performance. A total of 709 elite athletes were included from the NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball (MLB), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football and professional soccer.Results and discussionOverall, 61%–100% of elite male athletes RTP after Achilles tendon rupture and operative repair. NBA players had inferior performance compared with their preoperative status as well as controls of non-injured players. Studies did not show significantly different performance after Achilles injury for MLB players. Professional soccer, NFL and NCAA football studies reported varying performance after injury.ConclusionsEvidence suggests that sports with explosive plantarflexion demands, such as basketball, may be associated with a greater decrease in performance despite operative intervention after Achilles rupture.

Background:Many patients are affected by concurrent disease of the hip and spine, undergoing both total hip arthroplasty (THA) and lumbar spinal fusion (LSF). Recent literature demonstrates increased prosthetic dislocation rates in patients with THA done after LSF. Evidence is lacking on which surgery to do first to minimize complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of timing between the two procedures on postoperative outcomes.Methods:We queried the Medicare standard analytics files between 2005 and 2014. Four groups were identified and matched by age and sex: THA with previous LSF, LSF with previous THA, THA with spine pathology without fusion, and THA without spine pathology. Revision THA or LSF and bilateral THA were excluded. Comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index were identified. Postoperative complications at 90 days and 2 years were calculated after the most recent surgery. Four-way chi-squared and standard descriptive statistics were calculated.Results:Thirteen thousand one hundred two patients had THA after LSF, 10,482 patients had LSF after THA, 104,820 had THA with spine pathology, and 492,654 had THA without spine pathology. There was no difference in the Charlson Comorbidity Index score between the THA after LSF and LSF after THA groups. There was a statistically significant difference in THA dislocation rate, with LSF after THA at 1.7%, THA without spine pathology at 2.3%, THA with spine pathology at 3.3%, and THA after LSF at 4.6%. There was a statistically significant difference in THA revision rate, with THA without spine pathology at 3.3%, LSF after THA at 3.7%, THA with spine pathology at 4.2%, and THA after LSF at 5.7%.Conclusion:LSF after THA is associated with a reduced dislocation rate compared with THA after LSF. Reasons may include decreasing pelvic mobility in a stable, well-healed THA or early postoperative spine precautions after LSF restricting positions of dislocation.

Background: Return to sport is a commonly studied outcome of hip arthroscopy that is relevant to both patients and providers. There exists substantial variability in criteria used to define successful return to sport. Purpose: To review and evaluate the definitions used in the literature so as to establish a single standard to enable comparison of outcomes in future studies. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for studies relating to hip arthroscopy and return to sport. Articles included were those that met the following criteria: (1) contained 2 or more patients, (2) studied patients 18 years of age and older, (3) reported postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy, (4) clearly defined return to play, and (5) were written in English. Excluded articles (1) reported outcomes for nonoperative or open treatments, (2) did not clearly define return to play, or (3) were review articles, meta-analyses, or survey-based studies. Return-to-play definitions and additional metrics of postoperative performance and outcome were recorded. Results: A total of 185 articles were identified, and 28 articles were included in the final review, of which 18 involved elite athletes and 10 involved recreational athletes. Of articles studying elite athletes, 6 (33%) defined return to play as participation in regular or postseason competition, 3 (17%) extended the criteria to the preseason, and 2 (11%) used participation in sport-related activities and training. The remaining 7 (39%) reported rates of return to the preoperative level of competition but did not specify preseason versus regular season. All 10 articles evaluating recreational athletes defined return to play based on patient-reported outcomes. Four (40%) did so qualitatively, while 6 (60%) did so quantitatively. Conclusion: There exists significant variability in criteria used to define successful return to sport after hip arthroscopy, and these criteria differ among elite and recreational athletes. For elite athletes, return to the preoperative level of competition is most commonly used, but there exists no consensus on what type of competition—regular season, preseason, or training—is most appropriate. For recreational athletes, patient-reported data are most commonly employed, although there are clear differences between authors on the ways in which these are being used as well.