Characterization of American Football Injuries in Children and Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: As a collision sport, football carries a significant risk of injury, as indicated by the large number of pediatric football-related injuries seen in emergency departments. There is little information in the medical literature focusing on the age-related injury patterns of this sport. Our purpose was to evaluate the types of football-related injuries that occur in children and adolescents and assess which patient characteristics, if any, affect injury pattern. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed of football-related injuries treated at a level 1 pediatric referral hospital emergency department and surrounding urgent care clinics between January 2010 and January 2014. Patients with e-codes for tackle football selected from the electronic medical record were divided into 4 age groups: younger than 8 years old, 8 to 11, 12 to 14, and 15 to 18 years. Data collected included diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and hospital admission status. RESULTS: Review identified 1494 patients with 1664 football-related injuries, including 596 appendicular skeleton fractures, 310 sprains, 335 contusions, 170 closed head injuries, 62 dislocations, 9 spinal cord injuries, and 14 solid organ injuries. There were 646 (43.2%) athletes with upper extremity injuries and 487 (32.6%) with injuries to the lower extremity. Hospital admissions were required in 109 (7.3%) patients. Fracture was the most common injury in all four patient age groups, but occurred at a lower rate in the 15 to 18 years old age group. The rate of soft tissue injury was higher in the 15 to 18 years old age group. The rate of closed head injury, which included concussions, was highest in the younger than 8 years old age group. CONCLUSIONS: Age does influence the rates of certain football-related injuries in children and adolescents. Fractures decrease with increasing age, while the rate of soft tissue trauma increases with increasing age. Younger patients (younger than 8 y old) trended toward higher rates of closed head injury compared with other age groups. Awareness of these variations in injury patterns based on age could result in age-specific changes in equipment, training, and safety rules. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-case series.

Reliability testing of the Larsen and Sharp classifications for rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow.

BACKGROUND: Two popular systems for classifying rheumatoid arthritis affecting the elbow are the Larsen and Sharp schemes. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the reliability of these 2 systems. We compared the intraobserver and interobserver agreement of the 2 systems to determine whether one is more reliable than the other. METHODS: The radiographs of 45 patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis affecting the elbow were evaluated. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were deidentified and distributed to 6 evaluators (4 fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons and 2 orthopedic trainees). Each evaluator graded all 45 radiographs according to the Larsen and Sharp scoring methods on 2 occasions, at least 2 weeks apart. RESULTS: Overall intraobserver reliability was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.95) for the Larsen system and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.96) for the Sharp classification, both indicating substantial agreement. Overall interobserver reliability was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.80) for the Larsen classification and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81) for the Sharp system, both indicating good agreement. There were no significant differences in the intraobserver or interobserver reliability of the systems overall and no significant differences in reliability between attending surgeons and trainees for either classification system. CONCLUSION: The Larsen and Sharp systems both show substantial intraobserver reliability and good interobserver agreement for the radiographic classification of rheumatoid arthritis affecting the elbow. Differences in training level did not result in substantial variances in reliability for either system. We conclude that both systems can be reliably used to evaluate rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow by observers of varying training levels.

Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging are Similarly Reliable in the Assessment of Glenohumeral Arthritis and Glenoid Version.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of CT and T2-weighted MRI for evaluation of the severity of glenoid wear, glenohumeral subluxation, and glenoid version. METHODS: Sixty-one shoulders with primary osteoarthritis had CT and MRI scans before shoulder arthroplasty. All slices were blinded and randomized before evaluation. Two fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons and three orthopaedic surgery trainees reviewed the images to classify glenoid wear (Walch and Mayo classifications) and glenohumeral subluxation (Mayo classification). Glenoid version was measured using Friedman's technique. After a minimum two-week interval, the process was repeated. RESULTS: Intraobserver reliability was good for the CT group and fair-to-good for the MRI group for the Walch, Mayo glenoid, and Mayo subluxation classifications; interobserver reliability was poor for the CT and fair-to-poor for the MRI group. For the measurement of glenoid version, intraobserver reliability was good for the CT and substantial for the MRI group; interobserver agreement was good for both groups. There were no significant differences in reliability between staff surgeons and trainees for any of the classifications or measurements. CONCLUSION: CT and MRI appear similarly reliable for the classification of glenohumeral wear patterns. For the measurement of glenoid version, MRI was slightly more reliable than CT within observers. Differences in training level did not produce substantial differences in agreement, suggesting these systems can be applied by observers of different experience levels with similar reliability.

Factors affecting healing rates after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were developed to improve initial biomechanical strength of repairs to improve healing rates. Despite biomechanical improvements, failure of healing remains a clinical problem. PURPOSE: To evaluate the anatomical results after double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with ultrasound to determine postoperative repair integrity and the effect of various factors on tendon healing. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Forty-eight patients (49 shoulders) who had a complete arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (double-row technique) were evaluated with ultrasound at a minimum of 6 months after surgery. Outcome was evaluated at a minimum of 1-year follow-up with standardized history and physical examination, visual analog scale for pain, active forward elevation, and preoperative and postoperative shoulder scores according to the system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and the Simple Shoulder Test. Quantitative strength was measured postoperatively. RESULTS: Ultrasound and physical examinations were performed at a minimum of 6 months after surgery (mean, 16 months; range, 6 to 36 months) and outcome questionnaire evaluations at a minimum of 12 months after surgery (mean, 29 months; range, 12 to 55 months). Of 49 repairs, 25 (51%) were healed. Healing rates were 67% in single-tendon tears (16 of 24 shoulders) and 36% in multitendon tears (9 of 25 shoulders). Older age and longer duration of follow-up were correlated with poorer tendon healing (P < .03). Visual analog scale for pain, active forward elevation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and Simple Shoulder Test scores all had significant improvement from baseline after repair (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Increased age and longer duration of follow-up were associated with lower healing rates after double-row rotator cuff repair. The biological limitation at the repair site, as reflected by the effects of age on healing, appears to be the most important factor influencing tendon healing, even after maximizing repair biomechanical strength with a double-row construct.