Chung, Andrew S.

Background: National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football players are at a high risk of injuries. Elbow injuries are uncommon, but there are insufficient data specifically on elbow injuries sustained in NCAA football players. Purpose: To define the epidemiology of elbow injuries in NCAA football players during the 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 seasons using data from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP). Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: Using the NCAA-ISP database, a convenience sample of NCAA football athletes was reviewed to determine the types, rates, and trends in elbow injuries. Several factors were examined, including the diagnosis, injury setting, time lost from sport, surgical necessity, and injury recurrence. Raw injury data were obtained as well as weighted totals from the NCAA-ISP to generate national estimates and adjust for underreporting. Injury rates were calculated by dividing the number of injuries by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). The rate ratios of injuries during competition versus practice were compared, as were the rate ratios of preseason, regular-season, and postseason injuries by type. Results: We identified 4874 total elbow injuries from the 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 seasons. The rate of injuries overall was 1.892 per 10,000 AEs. The rate for competition was 9.053 per 10,000 AEs and 1.121 per 10,000 AEs for practice. The rate ratio between competition and practice was 8.08 (95% CI, 6.04-10.80). Injury rates for the preseason, regular season, and postseason were 1.851, 1.936, and 1.406 per 10,000 AEs, respectively. Acute elbow instability was the most common injury type (65.43%). The most common mechanism was a contact injury (86.77%); 96.82% of injuries did not require surgery, and most elbow injuries required less than 24 hours of participation restriction (67.33%). Conclusion: Although elbow injuries in NCAA football players are uncommon, it is important to recognize and treat these injuries appropriately. Dislocations and ulnar collateral ligament injuries caused athletes to miss extended periods of play. Fortunately, a majority of injuries resulted in less than 24 hours of participation restriction. Particular attention should be given to preventing elbow injuries, especially ulnar collateral ligament strains, hyperextension injuries, and acute instability.

Study Design. Descriptive epidemiology study. Objective. The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology of neck and cervical spine injuries in collegiate athletes over a 5-year period. Summary of Background Data. The incidence and etiology of neck and cervical spine injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes has not been well defined in recent years. Methods. The incidence and characteristics of neck and cervical spine injuries were identified utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program database. Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). AEs were defined as any student participation in one NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition. Results. Nationally, there were an estimated 11,510 neck and cervical spine injuries over the 5-year period. These occurred at a rate of 7.05 per 100,000 athlete-exposures (AEs). The rate of neck and cervical spine injuries in men was 2.66 per 100,000 AEs, while women suffered injuries at a rate of 1.95 per 100,000 AEs. In sex-comparable sports, men were 1.36 times more likely to suffer a neck or cervical spine injury compared with women. Men's football (29.09 per 100,000 AEs) and women's field hockey (11.51 per 100,000 AEs) were the sports with the highest rates of injuries. These injuries were 3.94 times more likely to occur during competition compared with practice. In-season injury rates were the highest, at 8.18 per 100,000 AEs. Conclusion. The vast majority of neck and cervical spine injuries in NCAA athletes are minor and uncommon. Across all sports in both sexes, the majority of injuries were new, and occurred during in-season competitions. Most athletes returned to play within 24 hours of injury. These data can inform players, parents, coaches, athletic trainers, and physicians regarding the prevalence and rates of these injuries and potentially inform decision-making regarding injury prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Level of Evidence: 4

Background: Little research has focused on the rates and patterns of elbow injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes. Purpose: To describe the epidemiological patterns of elbow injuries in NCAA athletes during 5 seasons over the academic years 2009 through 2014 using the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP) database. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A voluntary convenience sample of NCAA varsity teams from 11 sports was examined to determine the rates and patterns of elbow injuries. Rates and distributions of elbow injuries were identified within the context of sport, event type, time in season, mechanism, time lost from sport, surgical treatment, and injury type. Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). An AE was defined as any student participation in 1 NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition with an inherent risk of exposure to potential injury. Injury rate ratios (IRRs) and injury proportion ratios (IPRs) were then calculated to compare the rates within and between sports by event type, season, sex, mechanism, surgical treatment, and time lost from sport. Comparisons between sexes were made using only sports data that had both male and female samples. Results: Overall, 373 elbow injuries were reported in the NCAA-ISP data set during the 2009-2010 through 2013-2014 academic years among 11 varsity sports. The overall rate of injury was 1.76 per 10,000 AEs. The rate of elbow injuries in men was 0.74 per 10,000 AEs, while women experienced injuries at a rate of 0.63 per 10,000 AEs. In sex-comparable sports, men were 1.17 times more likely to experience an elbow injury compared with women. Men’s wrestling (6.00/10,000 AEs) and women’s tennis (1.86/10,000 AEs) were the sports with the highest rates of elbow injuries by sex, respectively. The top 3 highest injury rates overall occurred in men’s wrestling, baseball, and tennis. Elbow injuries were 3.5 times more likely to occur during competition compared with practice. Athletes were 0.76 times less likely to sustain an elbow injury during the preseason compared with in-season. Contact events were the most common mechanism of injury (67%). For sex-comparable sports, men were 2.41 times more likely than women to have contact as their injury mechanism (95% CI, 0.78-7.38). The majority of athletes missed less than 24 hours of participation time (67%), and only a minority (3%) of patients with elbow injuries went on to have surgical intervention. Elbow ulnar collateral ligament injuries were most common (26% of total injuries). Conclusion: Analysis of the study data demonstrated a significant rate of elbow injuries, 1.76 injuries per 10,000 AEs in NCAA collegiate athletes. Higher injury rates can be expected in males within sex-comparable sports. Elbow injuries are most common in the setting of competitions and most commonly occur secondary to contact-type mechanisms. Injuries were more likely to occur during in-season play. The majority of injuries required less than 24 hours of time away from sport and did not require surgical intervention.

Study Design. A retrospective cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative dehydration on hospital length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day postoperative complications, related reoperations, and readmissions. Summary of Background Data. Preoperative dehydration has long been associated with postoperative infection, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), acute renal failure, and an increased hospital LOS. To our knowledge, the effect of preoperative dehydration on complication rates for patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery has not been well described. Methods. An analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) data from 2006 to 2013 was performed. Patients undergoing elective lumbar procedures were identified and exclusion criteria eliminated patients who underwent any emergency procedures, infections, tumor cases, or revision surgeries. Patient dehydration was defined as preoperative blood urea nitrogen/creatinine (BUN/Cr) ratio greater than 20. Results. Patients (4698; 34.5%) with preoperative dehydration based on BUN/Cr ratio were identified. Univariate analysis was suggestive of an association between preoperative dehydration and an increased risk of DVT (1.1% compared with 0.6%; P = 0.002), urinary tract infection (2.5% compared with 1.6%; P < 0.001), and need for transfusion postoperatively (17.6% compared with 14.4%; P < 0.001). However, on the basis of multivariate regression, no significant association between dehydration and increased odds of aforementioned outcomes was identified. Conclusion. Preoperative dehydration does not appear to negatively affect perioperative outcomes or readmission in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery. Level of Evidence: 3

Background: There has been a surge in interest with regard to the utility of liposomal bupivacaine as part of a perioperative pain management protocol. The current study was proposed to critically assess the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine as a local anesthetic for pain relief following orthopaedic procedures. Methods: A systematic review of prospective, randomized trials involving liposomal bupivacaine was performed using searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcomes of interest included postoperative subjective pain scores and narcotic consumption. The length of stay and postoperative mobility were reviewed as secondary outcomes. Results: Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria and were included for review. Twelve of 17 studies concluded that periarticular or local infiltrative liposomal bupivacaine offered no additive benefit compared with other local anesthetic injections. Peripheral nerve blocks without liposomal bupivacaine conferred more optimal pain relief and decreased narcotic consumption in the immediate postoperative period when compared with liposomal bupivacaine, with no differences thereafter. Twelve studies listed a conflict of interest related to the drug manufacturer (Pacira Pharmaceuticals). Eight of these studies (67%) demonstrated clinical superiority of liposomal bupivacaine when compared with the study control. In the 15 studies that did not show a conflict of interest, only 1 study (7%) demonstrated therapeutic superiority with use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine when compared with a historical cohort that received no local or regional anesthesia. Conclusions: Current prospective, randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery fail to support the routine use of liposomal bupivacaine compared with other local injectable analgesics, particularly in the setting of knee replacement surgery. We were unable to find consistent support for the potential of superior pain relief and narcotic use reduction with the use of liposomal bupivacaine. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Low back injuries are common in collegiate football players and can frequently lead to persistent pain, reinjuries, and time lost from participation. Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of back injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football players during the 2009/2010 through 2013/2014 academic years utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) database. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A convenience sample of NCAA varsity football teams was utilized to determine the rates and patterns of back injuries as well as to generate national injury estimates. The rates and distribution of back injuries were identified within the context of mechanism of injury, injury chronicity, and time lost from sport. Injury rates were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). Incidence rate ratios were calculated to compare the rates of injury between season, event type, mechanism of injury, injury chronicity, and time lost from sport. Results: Nationally, there were 267 low back injuries reported in the database. These were used to estimate 7076 back injuries over the 5-year period, approximately 82% of which were new injuries. The injuries occurred at a rate of 2.70 per 10,000 AEs. Overall, injuries were 3.12 times more likely to occur in competitions than in practices. Athletes were 4.67 times more likely to sustain a back injury during the preseason compared with the postseason but were 1.41 times more likely to sustain a low back injury during the preseason compared with the regular season. Both contact and noncontact were reported equally as the mechanism of injury (37.8% and 38.3%, respectively), and unspecified low back pain was the most common injury (64.2%). Only 1.6% of patients required surgery for their injury, and the majority of athletes (59.6%) returned to play within 24 hours. Conclusion: There was a relatively high rate of lumbar back injuries at the collegiate level (2.70/10,000 AEs), the majority of which were new injuries. About 18% of reported injuries were reinjuries. Although very few required surgery, a careful examination and work-up should be conducted to evaluate each injury. Regimented physical therapy and reconditioning programs are recommended to avert reinjuries.

Study Design. Descriptive epidemiology study. Objective. The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology of cervical spine injuries in collegiate football players. Summary of Background Data. The incidence and etiology of cervical spine injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) football players has not been well defined in recent years. Methods. The incidence and characteristics of cervical spine injuries were identified utilizing the NCAA-ISP database. Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). AEs were defined as any student participation in one NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition. Results. An estimated 7496 cervical spine injuries were identified. Of these, 85.6% were categorized as new injuries. These occurred at a rate of 2.91 per 10000 AEs. Stingers were most common (1.87 per 10000 AEs) followed by cervical strains (0.80 per 10000 AEs). Injuries were nine times more likely to occur during competition when compared with practice settings. When compared with the regular season, the relative risks of sustaining a cervical spine injury during the preseason and postseason were 0.69 (95% CI 0.52–0.90) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.16–0.94), respectively. The rate of cervical spine injuries was highest in Division I athletes. Direct contact-related injuries were most common, representing 90.8% of all injuries sustained. Injuries were most common in linebackers (20.3%) followed secondarily by defensive linemen (18.2%). Most players returned to play within 24 hours of the initial injury (64.4%), while only 2.8% remained out of play for > 21 days. Conclusion. Fortunately, the rate of significant and disabling cervical spine injuries appears to be low in the NCAA football athlete. The promotion of safer tackling techniques, appropriate modification of protective gear, and preventive rehabilitation in these aforementioned settings is of continued value. Level of Evidence: 4

Study Design. Secondary analysis of a large administrative database. Objective. The objectives of this study are to: 1) identify the incidence and cause of 90-day readmissions following primary elective lumbar spine surgery, 2) offer insight into potential risk factors that contribute to these readmissions, and 3) quantify the cost associated with these readmissions. Summary of Background Data. As bundled-payment models for the reimbursement of surgical services become more popular in spine, the focus is shifting toward long-term patient outcomes in the context of 90-day episodes of care. With limited data available on national 90-day readmission statistics available, we hope to provide evidence that will aid in the development of more cost-effective perioperative care models. Methods. Using ICD-9 coding, we identified all patients 18 years of age and older in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) who underwent an elective, inpatient, primary lumbar spine surgery. Using multivariate logistic regression, we identified independent predictors of 90-day readmission while controlling for a multitude of confounding variables and completed a comparative cost analysis. Results. We identified 169,788 patients who underwent a primary lumbar spine procedure. In total 4268 (2.5%) were readmitted within 90 days. There was no difference in comorbidity burden between cohorts (readmitted vs. not readmitted) as quantified by the Elixhauser Comorbidity index. Independent predictors of increased odds of 90-day readmission were: anemia, uncomplicated diabetes and diabetes with chronic complications, surgical wound disruption and acute myocardial infarction at the time of the index admission, self-pay status, and an anterior surgical approach. Implant complications were identified as the primary related cause of readmission. These readmissions were associated with a significant cost increase. Conclusion. There are clearly identifiable risk factors that increase the odds of hospital readmission within 90 days of primary lumbar spine surgery. An overall 90-day readmission rate of 2.5%, while relatively low, carries significantly increased cost to both the patient and hospital. Level of Evidence: 3

Background: Lumbar spine injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes have not been well studied. Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of lumbar spine injuries in NCAA athletes during the 2009/2010 through 2013/2014 academic years utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP). Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A voluntary convenience sample of NCAA varsity teams from 25 sports was examined. Mechanism of injury, injury recurrence, and time lost from sport were recorded. Injury rates were calculated as the number of injuries divided by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). AEs were defined as any student participation in 1 NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition. Injury rate ratios and injury proportion ratios were calculated to compare the rates within and between sports by event type, season, patient sex, mechanism, injury recurrence, and time lost from sport. Comparisons between sexes were made utilizing data that had both male and female samples. Results: An estimated 50,834 lumbar spine injuries were identified. The overall rate of injuries was 2.88 per 10,000 AEs. The rate of injuries was 2.60 per 10,000 AEs in men compared with 2.89 per 10,000 AEs in women for sex-comparable sports. Women were 1.11 times more likely than men to suffer a lumbar spine injury. Women's gymnastics (8.02 injuries per 10,000 AEs) and women's tennis (5.73 injuries per 10,000 AEs) had the highest rates of lumbar spine injuries. Athletes were 1.6 and 2.4 times more likely to sustain a lumbar spine injury during the preseason than the regular season or postseason, respectively. Noncontact was the most common mechanism of injury (45%). Injury recurrence was most common in men’s outdoor track (43%). Most injuries resulted in less than 24 hours of time loss from event participation (64%). Conclusion: The rate of lumbar spine injuries was high in NCAA athletes, and injuries commonly recurred (20.73%). In general, women were more likely to sustain a lumbar spine injury compared with men. Higher injury rates occurred during competition and via a noncontact mechanism of injury. In addition to prevention programs, reconditioning programs should be considered to prevent these injuries.

Background: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attempts to define the patient’s experience of treatment outcomes. Efforts at calculating the MCID have yielded multiple and inconsistent MCID values. The purposes of this review were to describe the usage of the MCID in the most recent orthopaedic literature, to explain the limitations of its current uses, and to clarify the underpinnings of the MCID calculation, so as to help practitioners to understand and utilize the MCID and to guide future efforts to calculate the MCID. In Part I of this review, we sampled the orthopaedic literature in relation to the upper extremity. In this part, Part II, of the review, we will focus on the lower-extremity literature. Methods: A review was conducted of the 2014 to 2016 MCID-related publications in The Journal of Arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Foot & Ankle International, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that used the MCID. Articles were then further categorized into upper-extremity and lower-extremity publications. The MCID utilization in the selected articles was characterized and was recorded. Results: The MCID was referenced in 129 (7.5%) of 1,709 clinical science articles that utilized PROMs: 79 (61.2%) of the 129 articles were related to the lower extremity; of these, 11 (13.9%) independently calculated the MCID values and 68 (86.1%) used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. The MCID values were calculated or were considered for 31 PROMs, of which 24 were specific to the lower extremity. Eleven different methods were used to calculate the MCID. The MCID had a wide range of values for the same questionnaires, for instance, 5.8 to 31.3 points for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Conclusions: There are more than twice as many PROMs for the lower extremity (24) than for the upper extremity (11), confirming that the determination of useful MCID values is, in part, hampered by the proliferation of PROMs in the field of orthopaedics. The difference between significance and clinical importance needs to be further clarified. For instance, the common use of determining sample size with the MCID and comparing group means with the MCID implies that a significant result will also be clinically important. Further, the study of the MCID would benefit from consensus agreement on relevant terminology and the appropriate usage of the MCID determining equations. Clinical Relevance: MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients’ improvement. However, MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients’ improvement.