Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Did Not Substantially Impact Injury Patterns or Performance of Players in the National Basketball Association From 2016 to 2021.

Purpose: To perform a descriptive epidemiologic analysis of National Basketball Association (NBA) injuries from 2016 to 2021, to evaluate the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19) on injury patterns and performance statistics, and to determine the effect of infection with SARS-CoV-2 on individual performance statistics. Methods: Injury epidemiology in the NBA from the 2016 to 2021 seasons was collected using a comprehensive online search. Injuries and time missed were categorized by injury location and type. Player positions and timing of injury were recorded. Performance statistics were collected including traditional game statistics and Second Spectrum (speed, distance) statistics. Comparisons were made over seasons and comparing the pre-COVID-19 pandemic seasons to the pandemic era seasons. Players diagnosed with COVID-19 were analyzed for changes in performance in the short or long term. Results: Of the 3,040 injuries captured, 1,880 (61.84%) were in the lower extremity. Guards (77.44%) and forwards (75.88%) had a greater proportion of soft-tissue injuries (P < .001) than centers. Guards had the highest proportion of groin (3.27%, P = .001) and hamstring (6.21%, P < .001) injuries. Despite minor differences on a per-season basis, there were no differences in injury patterns identified between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. Of players diagnosed with COVID-19 during the NBA Bubble, there were no detriments in short- or long-term performance identified, including traditional game statistics and speed and distance traveled. Conclusions: In the NBA seasons from 2016 to 2021, most injuries were to the lower extremity. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not substantially impact injury patterns in the NBA, including locations of injury and type of injury (bony or soft tissue). Furthermore, infection with SARS-CoV-2 does not appear to have a significant impact on performance in basketball-specific or speed and distance measures. Level of Evidence: Level IV, prognostic case series.

Use of Social Media in Orthopaedic Surgery Training and Practice: A Systematic Review.

Background: Social media use has grown across healthcare delivery and practice, with dramatic changes occurring in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review to determine the current landscape of social media use by (1) orthopaedic surgery residencies/fellowship training programs and (2) individual orthopaedic surgeons and the change in use over time. Methods: We searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase) from their inception to April 2022 for all studies that analyzed the use of social media in orthopaedic surgery. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, rated study quality, and extracted data. Methodology was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included, of which 11 analyzed social media use by orthopaedic surgery residency and fellowship training programs and 17 examined its use by individual orthopaedic surgeons. Among residency and fellowship programs, Instagram was identified as the most common platform used, with 42% to 88% of programs reporting program-specific Instagram accounts, followed by Twitter/X (20%-52%) and Facebook (10%-38%). Social media was most commonly used by programs for recruitment and information dissemination to prospective residency applicants (82% and 73% of included studies, respectively). After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 620% and 177% increase in the number of training programs with Instagram and Twitter/X accounts, respectively. Individual use of social media ranged from 1.7% to 76% (Twitter/X), 10% to 73% (Facebook), 0% to 61% (Instagram), 22% to 61% (LinkedIn), and 6.5% to 56% (YouTube). Conclusions: Instagram, Twitter/X, and Facebook are the premier platforms that patients, residency applicants, and institutions frequent. With the continued growth of social media use anticipated, it will be critical for institutions and individuals to create and abide by guidelines outlining respectful and professional integration of social media into practice. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Suture-Augmented Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair for Proximal Avulsion or High-Grade Partial Tears Shows Similar Side-to-Side Difference and No Clinical Differences at Two Years Versus Conventional Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction for Mid-Substance Tears or Poor Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tissue Quality.

PURPOSE: To compare objective and subjective clinical outcomes between suture-augmented anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (SAACLR) and conventional ACL reconstruction (CACLR) with minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: In this nonrandomized, prospective study, 30 patients underwent SAACLR for proximal ACL avulsion or high-grade partial ACL tear (Sherman grade 1 or 2) and 30 patients underwent CACLR for proximal one-third/distal two-thirds junction tears and mid-substance tears (Sherman grade 3 or 4) tear types by 1 surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Failure was defined as ACL reinjury. Outcome measures were KT-1000 for side-to-side knee laxity evaluation, Visual Analog Scale for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Severity Score (KOOS), Tegner Activity Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for IKDC and KOOS subscores. RESULTS: Three failures (10%) occurred in the SAACLR group, with no failures in the CACLR group (P = .24). A total of 23 (85%) SAACLR patients and 27 (90%) CACLR patients had patient-reported outcomes and physical examination at minimum 2 years. Two-year KT-1000 testing with 20 lbs showed less than 1 mm side-to-side difference between the groups. No significant differences in the percentage of patients meeting the MCID were found between the SAACLR and CACLR groups at 2 years: IKDC, 10.81 (82%) versus 10.54 (93%) (P = .48); KOOS Pain, 11.55 (73%) versus 10.58 (78%) (P = .94); KOOS Symptoms, 8.15 (77%) versus 10.32 (74%) (P = 1.0); KOOS Activities of Daily Living, 12.19 (59%) versus 12.28 (70%) (P = .60); 18.99 (71%) versus 16.77 (86%) (P = .42). Significantly higher IKDC scores were observed with SAACLR versus CACLR at 3 months (P = .01) and 6 months (P = .02), and significantly higher Lysholm scale, Tegner Activity Scale, and all KOOS subscale scores were observed at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years after surgery, KT-1000 testing showed less than 1 mm side-to-side difference and no differences were observed between the groups in the percentage of patients who met or exceeded the MCID. Significantly higher early patient-reported outcome scores were found with SAACLR versus CACLR. The rerupture rate between the groups was not significantly different. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Prospective cohort study.