Rhim, Hye Chang

Abstract The transition from internship to residency represents an important period for trainees. However, little is known about self-assessed preparedness among physiatry trainees. This national cross-sectional exploratory survey of United States postgraduate year 2–4 physiatry residents aimed to examine self-reported preparedness at the start of postgraduate year 2. A total of 109 postgraduate year 2–4 residents completed this survey, with 57.8% (63/109) reporting feeling prepared to assume patient care responsibilities at the start of postgraduate year 2 and 42.2% (46/109) reporting feeling unprepared to do so. Specific internship experiences (e.g., developing comfort handling overnight calls and rapid responses), but not type of intern year (e.g., transitional year, preliminary internal medicine or surgery year, intern year included in a categorical physiatry residency program) may be associated with self-reported clinical preparedness. Further research is warranted to explore in more detail factors identified as potentially associated with self-assessed clinical preparedness, as well as opportunities to identify and address physiatry trainee needs.

Background/Objectives: Although Osgood–Schlatter disease (OSD) is often self-limiting following apophyseal closure, it may cause persistent symptoms into adulthood, affecting physical and functional activities. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidence on the efficacy of hyperosmolar dextrose injection for patients with OSD unresponsive to conservative treatment. Methods: Multiple databases were searched for studies investigating the efficacy of hyperosmolar dextrose injection in patients with OSD. Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed to compare hyperosmolar dextrose injection with placebo injections. Results: Four studies including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one case series involving a total of 166 (162 males and 4 females) patients with 184 knees were included in this review. At three months, there was no significant difference in patient-reported improvement from baseline between hyperosmolar dextrose injection and placebo injections (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.12 to 3.96; I2 = 96.2%). However, a meta-analysis of two RCTs including athletic pediatric patients found a pooled risk ratio of 2.11 (95% CI: 1.12 to 3.98, I2 = 30.73%) for pain-free return to sports at three months. In addition, at one year, a meta-analysis of two RCTs showed greater patient-reported improvement from baseline with hyperosmolar dextrose injection compared to placebo (SMD = 1.09, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.56; I2= 0%). Conclusions: Based on the limited number of RCTs, although no improvement in patient-reported outcomes is seen at three months, hyperosmolar dextrose injection may safely facilitate a pain-free return to sports at three months and lead to patient-reported improvement at one year. However, further high-quality RCTs are needed to substantiate these findings.

Objectives While extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) may be an efficacious adjunctive treatment option for musculoskeletal injuries, current research is limited by significant heterogeneity within treatment protocols. This study aims to establish international expert consensus recommendations on ESWT terminology, parameters, procedural considerations, contraindications and side effects in the application of ESWT to sports injuries. Methods A systematic literature search was performed on the use of ESWT for musculoskeletal and sports medicine injuries to identify potential panellists, followed by the development of a steering committee-led questionnaire. A three-stage, modified Delphi questionnaire was provided to a panel of 41 international clinical and research experts across 13 countries. Panellists had the opportunity to suggest edits to existing statements or recommend additional statements in Round 1. Consensus was defined as≥75% agreement. Results All 41 panellists completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3. Consensus was reached on 69/118 statements (58.5%), including recommendations on terminology and fundamental concepts, indications for use, procedural aspects for tendinopathy and bone pathologies, treatment correlations with imaging, periprocedural and postprocedural considerations, absolute and relative contraindications and potential side effects. Of the 49 statements that did not reach consensus, 17/49 (34.7%) were related to procedural aspects of bone pathology. Conclusion This international panel presents recommendations on ESWT terminology, indications and treatment considerations to guide ESWT use and decision-making by sports medicine clinicians. While our panel supported the use of ESWT in the treatment of bone pathologies, certain procedural aspects of ESWT specific to these injuries did not reach consensus and require further investigation.