Hevesi, Mario

Background: Despite mounting clinical evidence for the utility of orthobiologics in nonoperative management of orthopaedic pathology, the market for orthobiologic therapies remains largely unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration, giving rise to a wide range of pricing for these therapeutics by different provider types. Purpose: To determine the availability and pricing for platelet-rich plasma (PRP), amniotic or adipose “stem cell,” and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMC) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis among orthopaedic sports medicine and alternative providers (eg, chiropractic clinics and stand-alone “regenerative medicine” clinics) in a major metropolitan city. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Orthopaedic sports medicine providers in the Chicagoland area were identified through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) surgeon databases. Alternative clinics offering orthobiologic injections were systematically compiled using Yelp! and Google search listings and reviews. Clinics were contacted using a standardized telephone script. Data were collected for each site on the types of injections offered, whether price was disclosed over the telephone, the price of injections offered, and the source of stem cell injections if they were provided. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the mean price between practices. F tests for equality of variances were used to compare the variability in prices between practice types. Results: A total of 25 unique orthopaedic sports medicine practices (comprising 80 AOSSM/AANA surgeons) and 40 alternative clinics offered PRP, stem cell, and/or BMC injections, as indicated over the telephone. There was no difference in likelihood of offering PRP ( P = .698) or BMC injections ( P = .340). However, alternative clinics were significantly more likely to offer stem cell injections ( P < .001). There was no difference in the willingness to disclose the price for PRP ( P = .269), stem cell injections ( P = .302), and BMC ( P = .528) or the source of what each clinic advertised as stem cell injections ( P = .630). The mean price for a single PRP injection was significantly higher ( P = .011) and significantly more variable ( F statistic = .139; P < .001) at alternative clinics. Similarly, the mean price for a single stem cell injection was significantly higher ( P < .001) and significantly more variable ( F statistic = 0.080; P = .025) at alternative clinics. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that orthobiologic knee injections are highly prevalent for in-clinic use within the Chicago metropolitan area, with PRP being the most commonly used therapeutic. When compared with orthopaedic sports medicine providers, alternative clinics were more likely to offer stem cell injections and charge a significantly greater and more variable amount per PRP and stem cell treatment.

Objectives: Participation in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football is at an all-time high. This population experiences a substantial injury burden with many of these injuries affecting the upper extremities. The NCAA has adopted a data-driven decision-making process when providing recommendations for protecting player safety. The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology of hand and wrist injury in NCAA football in an effort to provide meaningful data for tailoring effective injury prevention strategies. Methods: An epidemiologic study utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP) database was performed to investigate rates and patterns of hand and wrist injury in NCAA varsity football teams participating in the NCAA-ISP from 2009 to 2014. Descriptive statistics were used to present demographic data. Injury rates were calculated per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs) using statistical cross-referencing between injury-level and event-level data. Injury mechanism and severity, as measured by time-loss from play, were determined and compared between exposure factors such as player position, player seniority, and practice versus game setting. Results: 725 hand and wrist injuries were captured in 899,225 AEs. The observed practice hand and wrist injury rate was 0.51 injuries per thousand AEs, which was significantly lower than the game injury rate of 3.60 (p < 0.01). Comparing player demographics for injuries sustained during practice as opposed to game time revealed significant differences based on player year, player position, activity performed at the time of injury, and mechanism of injury (p < 0.01, Figure 1). Player-on-player contact was the most common injury mechanism reported with blocking being the most common activity at injury. Of all sustained injuries, 71.4% resulted in no time loss from competition whereas 9.8% of injuries resulted in greater than 7 days of time loss. On average, fracture resulted in the greatest time loss from competition (8.3 ± 24.0 days for injuries sustained in practice setting, 7.7 ±15.8 days for injuries sustained in game setting). When comparing injury by location, hand injury resulted in greater time loss (3.7 ± 15.1, 4.4 ± 13.8) than to nail/subungual (0±0, 0±0), finger (1.6 ± 6.7, 1.1 ± 4.2), and wrist injury (1.2 ± 3.8, 1.8 ± 4.9). Conclusion: This study characterizes the incidence of NCAA football hand and wrist injuries in both practice and game settings and demonstrates the relatively low rate of injuries leading to loss of playing time. Hand and wrist injury was found to be significantly more common in games when compared to practice. Offensive linemen were the most commonly affected players in the cohort, with most injuries occurring during game time compared to practice. This study provides valuable prognostic data regarding expected time loss from play on a per injury pattern basis. Further investigation on specific injury subtypes and expected time loss as a result of these injures would provide trainers, players, and coaches with useful information on an expected post-injury recovery and rehabilitation timeline. [Figure: see text]

Background: Participation in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football is at an all-time high. This population of athletes experiences a substantial injury burden, with many injuries affecting the upper extremities. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology of hand and wrist injuries in college football players from the academic years 2009–2010 to 2013–2014. We hypothesized that variables such as event type (practice vs game), mechanism of injury, and player position would have an effect on the injury incidence. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiological study. Methods: An epidemiological study utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program was performed to investigate rates and patterns of hand and wrist injuries in participating varsity football teams from 2009–2010 to 2013–2014. Results: A total of 725 hand and wrist injuries were captured in 899,225 athlete-exposures. The observed practice injury rate was 0.51 injuries per 1000 athlete-exposures, compared with a game injury rate of 3.60 ( P < .01). Player-on-player contact was the most common injury mechanism reported, with blocking being the most common activity at the time of injury. Offensive linemen were most likely to experience an injury. Of all injuries sustained, 71.4% resulted in no time loss from competition, whereas 9.8% of injuries resulted in longer than 7 days of time loss. A fracture resulted in the greatest time loss from competition (mean ± SD, 8.3 ± 24.0 days; median, 0 days [range, 0-148 days] for injuries sustained in a practice setting) (mean ± SD, 7.7 ± 15.8 days; median, 0 days [range, 0-87 days] for injuries sustained in a game setting). Conclusion: Hand and wrist injuries were found to be significantly more common in games when compared with practices. This study provides valuable prognostic data regarding expected time loss on a per-injury pattern basis. Further investigation on specific injury subtypes and expected time loss as a result of these injures would provide trainers, players, and coaches with useful information on an expected postinjury recovery and rehabilitation timeline.