No abstract

Advancements in technology and the economic desires to maximize use of athletic playing surfaces have led to the development of various playing surfaces across the spectrum of sports. Each of these surfaces possesses specific safety profiles which are sport and population specific. Despite the growing medical literature on outdoor playing surfaces, inconsistent data exist on both orthopedic injuries and general medical concerns, such as surface component exposure toxicity and infection risk. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of data regarding various indoor playing surfaces and their effects on injury risk; this is an area ripe for further medical investigation. Understanding the differences in various play surfaces and their associated injury and health concerns is crucial for all medical staff providing care to athletes across the spectrum of skill and competition.

No abstract

Background: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is a rapid and cost-effective method to quantify left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) is the gold standard for LVEF quantification. While cMRI's expensive and low availability limit access, we seek to determine the correlation between cMRI and TTE in the clinical setting, and if cMRI changes device therapy decisions. Purpose: To compare LVEF quantification between TTE and cMRI. To demonstrate the utilisation of cMRI in determining if device therapy is indicated or not. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients from one hospital, with TTE and cMRI within 10 days. Demographic and cardiac risk factor data also obtained. TTE LVEF calculated using Biplane Simpson's Method; cMRI LVEF calculated using cMRI software auto-trace mode with manual correction. Results: 44 patients included (57% male; age 46.2616 years; BMI 30.066.7 kg/m 2). 9 of 44 patients have variability .10% in absolute LVEF. In patients with LVEF .50%, there was significant variability (p,0.005) in LVEF quantification between TTE and cMRI. In patients with LVEF #50% (subgroups: ,30%, 30-35%, 36-50%), the mean LVEF was comparable between TTE and cMRI. However, 5 of 44 patients were reclassified using cMRI, on device therapy eligibility (LVEF #35%): 1 met criteria, 4 did not. Conclusion: For LVEF quantification, TTE often approximates cMRI, except for in patients with LVEF .50%. However, small discrepancies carry significant implications on device therapy indications in patients with moderately and borderline severely reduced LVEF.