Which criteria are used to clear patients to return to sport after primary ACL reconstruction? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the criteria used to clear athletes to return to sport (RTS) following primary ACL reconstruction. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus electronic databases were searched using keywords related to ACL and RTS. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective or retrospective studies reporting at least one RTS criterion for athletes who had primary ACL reconstruction with an autograft. RESULTS: In total, 209 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. RTS criteria were categorised into six domains: time, strength, hop testing, clinical examination, patient-report and performance-based criteria. From the 209 included studies, time was used in 178 studies (85%), and in 88 studies (42%) was the sole RTS criterion. Strength tests were reported in 86 studies (41%). Sixteen different hop tests were used in 31 studies (15%). Clinical examination was used in 54 studies (26%), patient report in 26 studies (12%) and performance-based criteria in 41 studies (20%). SUMMARY: Time and impairment-based measures dominated RTS criteria, despite sport being a complex physical and biopsychosocial activity with demands across all aspects of function. Time was included as a criterion in 85% of studies, and over 80% of studies allowed RTS before 9 months. Whether RTS tests are valid-do they predict successful RTS?-is largely unknown.

Femoroacetabular impingement surgery allows 74% of athletes to return to the same competitive level of sports participation but their level of performance remains unreported: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome is one source of hip pain that can limit sport participation among athletes. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the return to sport (RTS) rate for athletes after surgery for FAI syndrome. METHODS: A computer-assisted search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EMBASE databases was performed using keywords related to RTS and RTS at preinjury level (RTSPRE) of competition for FAI syndrome. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale. RESULTS: 35 studies (1634 athletes/1828 hips) qualified for analysis. Based on evidence of limited to moderate strength (level 3b to 4 studies), athletes return to sport at preinjury level post surgery for FAI syndrome at a rate of only 74% (67%-81%). Only 37% of studies reported RTSPRE. The mean time from surgery to RTS was 7.0±2.6 months. The mean follow-up postsurgery was 28.1±15.5 months. Professional athletes returned to sport (p=0.0002) (although not the preinjury sport level; p=0.63) at a higher rate than collegiate athletes. Only 14% of studies reported on athletic presurgery and postsurgery athletic performance, which means it is impossible to comment on whether athletes return to their previous level of performance or not. No studies reported on the specific criteria used to permit players to return to sport. 20% of studies reported on career longevity, 51% reported surgical complications and 77% reported on surgical failures. CONCLUSION: There was limited to moderate evidence that one in four athletes did not return to their previous level of sport participation after surgery for FAI syndrome. Only 37% of the included studies clearly distinguished RTS from RTSPRE. Poor outcome reporting on athletic performance postsurgery makes it difficult to determine to what level of performance these athletes actually perform. Thus, if a player asks a surgeon 'Will I get back to my previous level of performance?' there are presently little to no published data from which to base an answer. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017072762.

Prevalence and Consistency in Surgical Outcome Reporting for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this review were (1) to collate and synthesize research studies reporting any outcome measure on both open and arthroscopic surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome and (2) to report the prevalence and consistency of outcomes across the included studies. METHODS: A computer-assisted literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Embase databases was conducted using keywords related to FAI syndrome and both open and arthroscopic surgical outcomes, resulting in 2,614 studies, with 163 studies involving 14,824 subjects meeting the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently reviewed study inclusion and data extraction with independent verification. The prevalence of reported outcomes was calculated and verified by separate authors. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2016, there has been a 2,600% increase in the publication of surgical outcome studies. Patients had a mean duration of symptoms of 27.7 ± 21.5 months before surgery. Arthroscopy was the surgical treatment used in 71% of studies. The mean final follow-up period after surgery was 32.2 ± 17.3 months. Follow-up time frames were reported in 78% of studies. Ten different patient-reported outcome measures were reported. The alpha angle was reported to be measured 42% less frequently as a surgical outcome than as a surgical indication. Surgical complications were addressed in only 53% of studies and failures in 69%. Labral pathology (91% of studies reporting) and chondral pathology (61%) were the primary coexisting pathologies reported. Clinical signs, as defined by the Warwick Agreement on FAI syndrome, were reported in fewer than 25% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Most FAI syndrome patients have longstanding pain and potential coexisting pathology. Patient-reported outcome measures and diagnostic imaging are the most frequently reported outcomes. Measures of hip strength and range of motion are under-reported. It is unclear whether the inconsistency in reporting is because of lack of measurement or lack of reporting of specific outcomes in these studies. Current surgical outcomes are limited to mid-term surgical follow-up time frames and inconsistent outcome reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.

Return to sport after open and microdiscectomy surgery versus conservative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc herniation has a prevalence of up to 58% in the athletic population. Lumbar discectomy is a common surgical procedure to alleviate pain and disability in athletes. We systematically reviewed the current clinical evidence regarding athlete return to sport (RTS) following lumbar discectomy compared to conservative treatment. METHODS: A computer-assisted literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, OVID and PubMed databases (from inception to August 2015) was utilised using keywords related to lumbar disc herniation and surgery. The design of this systematic review was developed using the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Methodological quality of individual studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale (0-16 points). RESULTS: The search strategy revealed 14 articles. Downs and Black quality scores were generally low with no articles in this review earning a high-quality rating, only 5 articles earning a moderate quality rating and 9 of the 14 articles earning a low-quality rating. The pooled RTS for surgical intervention of all included studies was 81% (95% CI 76% to 86%) with significant heterogeneity (I(2)=63.4%, p<0.001) although pooled estimates report only 59% RTS at same level. Pooled analysis showed no difference in RTS rate between surgical (84% (95% CI 77% to 90%)) and conservative intervention (76% (95% CI 56% to 92%); p=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Studies comparing surgical versus conservative treatment found no significant difference between groups regarding RTS. Not all athletes that RTS return at the level of participation they performed at prior to surgery. Owing to the heterogeneity and low methodological quality of included studies, rates of RTS cannot be accurately determined.

The efficacy of manual joint mobilisation/manipulation in treatment of lateral ankle sprains: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lateral ankle sprains are common and can have detrimental consequences to the athlete. Joint mobilisation/manipulation may limit these outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Systematically summarise the effectiveness of manual joint techniques in treatment of lateral ankle sprains. METHODS: This review employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A computer-assisted literature search of MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, OVID and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (January 1966 to March 2013) was used with the following keywords alone and in combination 'ankle', 'sprain', 'injuries', 'lateral', 'manual therapy', and 'joint mobilisation'. The methodological quality of individual studies was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: After screening of titles, abstracts and full articles, eight articles were kept for examination. Three articles achieved a score of 10 of 11 total points; one achieved a score of 9; two articles scored 8; one article scored a 7 and the remaining article scored a 5. Three articles examined joint techniques for acute sprains and the remainder examined subacute/chronic ankle sprains. Outcome measures included were pain level, ankle range of motion, swelling, functional score, stabilometry and gait parameters. The majority of the articles only assessed these outcome measures immediately after treatment. No detrimental effects from the joint techniques were revealed in any of the studies reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: For acute ankle sprains, manual joint mobilisation diminished pain and increased dorsiflexion range of motion. For treatment of subacute/chronic lateral ankle sprains, these techniques improved ankle range-of-motion, decreased pain and improved function.

Differential diagnosis and management of an older runner with an atypical neurodynamic presentation: a case for clinical reasoning.

STUDY DESIGN: Case Report. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this case report is to describe the clinical reasoning process involved with the differential diagnosis and management of a 69 year-old male runner reporting a six month history of insidious onset of left sided low back and buttock pain of low to medium degree of irritability. The case presented describes the utilization of clinical reasoning by a clinician in fellowship training when a patient with atypical adverse neurodynamic dysfunction related to running was encountered. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient's physical examination was relatively unremarkable. Assessment of the patient's subjective history, self-report measures [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), global rating of change scale (GROC)], objective findings, and tests and measures led to a working diagnosis of atypical adverse peripheral neurodynamic dysfunction. The lumbar spine, sacroiliac joint, hip joint and lower extremity were ruled out by a comprehensive subjective and objective examination. The diagnosis of adverse neurodynamic dysfunction became a diagnosis of exclusion. OUTCOMES: Returning two and a half weeks after initial evaluation the patient reported no pain with running. Twelve weeks after the initiation of physical therapy, the patient was contacted via email. He was sent, and asked to fill out an ODI. The patient demonstrated an improvement in ODI from 10% to 2%. He also reported that he continued to run after treatment without pain. DISCUSSION: Determining the source of a patient complaint can occasionally be an arduous undertaking. Pathological sources of a patient's symptoms may not be easily determined. Development of differential diagnosis and clinical reasoning skills is imperative. Improving clinical reasoning skills requires deliberate practice through reflective thinking before, during, and after patient interactions. Refinement of these skills leads to the primary goal of identifying the patient's clinical presentation, thus matching it with the most effective treatment approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Nonoperative treatment in lumbar spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Both spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be diagnosed across the life span of sports-participating individuals. Determining which treatments are effective for these conditions is imperative to the rehabilitation professional. DATA SOURCES: A computer-assisted literature search was completed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases (1966-April 2012) utilizing keywords related to nonoperative treatment of spondylolysis and/or spondylolisthesis. Reference lists were also searched to find all relevant articles that fit our inclusion criteria: English language, human, lumbar pain with diagnosed spondylolysis and/or spondylolisthesis, inclusion of at least 1 nonoperative treatment method, and use of a comparative study design. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted from the selected studies by 2 authors and cross-referenced. Any disagreement on relevant data was discussed and resolved by a third author. RESULTS: Ten studies meeting the criteria were rated for quality using the GRADE scale. Four studies found surgical intervention more successful than nonoperative treatment for treating pain and functional limitation. One study found no difference between surgery and nonoperative treatment with regard to future low back pain. Improvement was found in bracing, bracing and exercises emphasizing lumbar extension, range of motion and strengthening exercises focusing on lumbar flexion, and strengthening specific abdominal and lumbar muscles. CONCLUSION: No consensus can be reached on the role of nonoperative versus surgical care because of limited investigation and heterogeneity of studies reported. Studies of nonoperative care options suffered from lack of blinding assessors and control groups and decreased patient compliance with exercise programs.