Background:CrossFit is a strength and conditioning program that has gained widespread recognition, with 11,000 affiliated gyms worldwide. The incidence of injuries during CrossFit training is poorly analyzed.Purpose:To investigate the incidence of injuries for persons participating in CrossFit. Risk factors for injury and injury mechanisms were also explored through athlete demographics and characteristics.Study Design:Descriptive epidemiology study.Methods:A questionnaire that focused on injury incidence in CrossFit in the past year and included data on athlete demographics and characteristics was distributed to all 130 CrossFit gyms in the Netherlands and was also available online in active Facebook groups. Data were collected from July 2015 to January 2016. Inclusion criteria consisted of age ≥18 years and training at a registered CrossFit gym in the Netherlands. A total of 553 participants completed the survey. Univariable and multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to identify potential risk factors for injury.Results:A total of 449 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of all respondents, 252 athletes (56.1%) sustained an injury in the preceding 12 months. The most injured body parts were the shoulder (n = 87, 28.7%), lower back (n = 48, 15.8%), and knee (n = 25, 8.3%). The duration of participation in CrossFit significantly affected the injury incidence rates (<6 months vs ≥24 months; odds ratio, 3.687 [95% CI, 2.091-6.502]; P < .001). The majority of injuries were caused by overuse (n = 148, 58.7%).Conclusion:The injury incidence for athletes participating in CrossFit was 56.1%. The most frequent injury locations were the shoulder, lower back, and knee. A short duration of participation (<6 months) was significantly associated with an increased risk for injury.

Background and purpose — As a result of introduction of a fast-track program, length of hospital stay after total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreased in our hospital. We therefore wondered whether THA in an outpatient setting would be feasible. We report our experience with THA in an outpatient setting.Patients and methods — In this prospective cohort study, we included 27 patients who were selected to receive primary THA in an outpatient setting between April and July 2014. Different patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were recorded preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Furthermore, anchor questions on how patients functioned in daily living were scored at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively.Results — 3 of the 27 patients did not go home on the day of surgery because of nausea and/or dizziness. The remaining 24 patients all went home on the day of surgery. PROMs improved substantially in these patients. Moreover, anchor questions on how patients functioned in their daily living indicated that the patients were satisfied with the postoperative results. 1 re-admission occurred at 11 days after surgery because of seroma formation. There were no other complications or reoperations.Interpretation — At our hospital, with a fast-track protocol, outpatient THA was found to be feasible in selected patients with satisfying results up to 3 months postoperatively, without any outpatient procedure-specific complications or re-admissions.

Background and purposeRapid recovery protocols after total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been introduced worldwide in the last few years and they have reduced the length of hospital stay. We show the results of the introduction of a rapid recovery protocol for primary THA for unselected patients in our large teaching hospital.Patients and methodsIn a retrospective cohort study, we included all 1,180 patients who underwent a primary THA between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2012. These patients were divided into 3 groups: patients operated before, during, and after the introduction of the rapid recovery protocol. There were no exclusion criteria. All complications, re-admissions, and reoperations were registered and analyzed.ResultsThe mean length of hospital stay decreased from 4.6 to 2.9 nights after the introduction of the rapid recovery protocol. There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of complications, re-admissions, or reoperations between the 3 groups.InterpretationIn a large teaching hospital, the length of hospital stay decreased after introduction of our protocol for rapid recovery after THA in unselected patients, without any increase in complications, re-admissions, or reoperation rate.

Background: It is unclear whether cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty is the best treatment option in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Previous randomized trials comparing cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty have conflicting results. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty.

Background and purpose — In the Netherlands about 40% of hip fractures are treated with a hemiarthroplasty (HA) or a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although these procedures are claimed to have fewer complications than osteosynthesis (i.e., reoperation), complications still occur. Analyses of data from national registries with adequate completeness of revision surgery are important to establish guidelines to diminish the risk for revision. We identified risk factors for revision.Patients and methods — All patients older than 50 years of age with a hip fracture treated with arthroplasty by orthopedic surgeons and registered in the (national) Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) were included in the study. In this register, patient characteristics and surgical details were prospectively collected. Revision surgery and reasons for revision were evaluated. A proportional hazard ratio model for revision was created using competing risk analysis (with death as competing risk).Results — 1-year revision rate of HA was (cumulative incidence function [CIF] 1.6% (95% CI 1.4–1.8) and THA 2.4% (CI 2.0–2.7). Dislocation was the most common reason for revision in both groups (HA 29%, THA 41%). Male sex, age under 80 years, posterolateral approach, and uncemented stem fixation were risk factors for revision in both THA and HA. THA patients with ASA classification III/IV were revised more often, whereas revision in the HA cohort was performed more often in ASA I/II patients.Interpretation — After arthroplasty of hip fractures, both a posterolateral approach and an uncemented hip stem have higher risks for revision surgery compared with an anterolateral approach and an cemented stem.