Bioactive and Bioinductive Implants Are Increasingly Used in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine but Adequately Controlled Studies Are Needed: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: To describe the currently available literature reporting clinical outcomes for bioactive and bioinductive implants in sports medicine. METHODS: In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of 4 databases was completed to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria were studies using bioactive or bioinductive implants in human clinical studies for sports medicine procedures. Data were extracted and reported in narrative form, along with study characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 145 studies were included involving 6,043 patients. The majority of included studies were level IV evidence (65.5%), and only 36 included a control group (24.8%). Bioactive materials are defined as any materials that stimulate an advantageous response from the body upon implantation, whereas bioinductive materials provide a favorable environment for a biological response initiated by the host. Bioactivity can speed healing and improve clinical outcome by improving vascularization, osteointegration, osteoinduction, tendon healing, and soft-tissue regeneration or inducing immunosuppression or preventing infection. The most common implants reported were for knee (67.6%, primarily cartilage [most commonly osteochondral defects], anterior cruciate ligament, and meniscus), shoulder (16.6%, primarily rotator cuff), or ankle (11.7%, primarily Achilles repair). The most common type of implant was synthetic (44.1%), followed by autograft (30.3%), xenograft (16.6%), and allograft (9.0%). In total, 69% of implants were standalone treatments and 31% were augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: The existing bioactive and bioinductive implant literature in sports medicine is largely composed of small, low-level-of-evidence studies lacking a control group. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Before bioactive implants can be adapted as a new standard of care, larger, comparative clinical outcome studies with long-term follow-up are essential.

Efficacy of Guardian Cap Soft-Shell Padding on Head Impact Kinematics in American Football: Pilot Findings.

Sport-related concussion prevention strategies in collision sports are a primary interest for sporting organizations and policy makers. After-market soft-shell padding purports to augment the protective capabilities of standard football helmets and to reduce head impact severity. We compared head impact kinematics [peak linear acceleration (PLA) and peak rotational acceleration (PRA)] in athletes wearing Guardian Cap soft-shell padding to teammates without soft-shell padding. Ten Division I college football players were enrolled [soft-shell padding (SHELL) included four defensive linemen and one tight end; non-soft-shell (CONTROL) included two offensive linemen, two defensive linemen, and one tight end]. Participants wore helmets equipped with the Head Impact Telemetry System to quantify PLA (g) and PRA (rad/s2) during 14 practices. Two-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare log-transformed PLA and PRA between groups across helmet location and gameplay characteristics. In total, 968 video-confirmed head impacts between SHELL (n = 421) and CONTROL (n = 547) were analyzed. We observed a Group x Stance interaction for PRA (F1,963 = 7.21; p = 0.007) indicating greater PRA by SHELL during 2-point stance and lower PRA during 3- or 4-point stances compared to CONTROL. There were no between-group main effects. Protective soft-shell padding did not reduce head impact kinematic outcomes among college football athletes.

Association Between Head Impact Biomechanics and Physical Load in College Football.

Head impacts and physical exertion are ubiquitous in American football, but the relationship between these factors is poorly understood across a competitive season or even within an individual session. Gameplay characteristics, including player position and session type, may contribute to these relationships but have not been prospectively examined. The current study aimed to determine if an association exists between head impact biomechanics and physical load metrics. We prospectively studied college football players during the 2017-2021 football seasons across representative playing positions (15 offensive and defensive linemen, 11 linebackers and tight ends, and 15 defensive backs, running backs, and receivers). Participants wore halters embedded with Catapult Vector GPS monitoring systems to quantify player load and participant helmets were equipped with the Head Impact Telemetry System to quantify head impact biomechanics and repetitive head impact exposure (RHIE). Generalized linear models and linear regression models were employed to analyze in-session and season-long outcomes, while addressing factors such as player position and session type on our data. Player load was associated with RHIE (p < 0.001). Season-long player load predicted season-long RHIE (R2 = 0.31; p < 0.001). Position group affected in-session player load (p = 0.025). Both player load and RHIE were greater in games than in practices (p < 0.001), and position group did not affect RHIE (p = 0.343). Physical load burden was associated with RHIE within sessions and across an entire season. Session type affected both RHIE and player load, while position group only affected player load. Our data point to tracking physical load burden as a potential proxy for monitoring anticipated RHIE during the season.