Ethics in sports medicine.

Physicians have struggled with the medical ramifications of athletic competition since ancient Greece, where rational medicine and organized athletics originated. Historically, the relationship between sport and medicine was adversarial because of conflicts between health and sport. However, modern sports medicine has emerged with the goal of improving performance and preventing injury, and the concept of the "team physician" has become an integral part of athletic culture. With this distinction come unique ethical challenges because the customary ethical norms for most forms of clinical practice, such as confidentiality and patient autonomy, cannot be translated easily into sports medicine. The particular areas of medical ethics that present unique challenges in sports medicine are informed consent, third parties, advertising, confidentiality, drug use, and innovative technology. Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted code of sports medicine ethics that adequately addresses these issues.

Research methodology.

Research aims to reach valid conclusions through scientific enquiry. Valid conclusions can only be reached if bias is minimized or eliminated. Bias can potentially take place in the design, implementation, or analysis of a study. Various study designs reduce bias, and this article reviews some of the more common study designs in orthopaedic sports medicine. We also discuss bias and confounding factors as they relate to these studies.

Do newer-generation bioabsorbable screws become incorporated into bone at two years after ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon graft?: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Bioabsorbable interference screws are used frequently for graft fixation in ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction. The resorption properties of many available screws that are marketed as bioabsorbable are not well defined. The CALAXO (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy) and MILAGRO (DePuy Synthes) bioabsorbable screws contain polymers of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) plus additives to encourage osseointegration over time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) properties and compare patient-reported outcomes at a minimum of two years of follow-up after ACL reconstruction using CALAXO or MILAGRO bioabsorbable interference screws. METHODS: A cohort of patients who underwent ACL reconstruction in which the fixation used was either CALAXO or MILAGRO screws returned for repeat radiographs for evaluation of tunnel widening, repeat MRI for evaluation of graft integrity and screw breakdown, and completion of the pain and symptom items of the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) questionnaire. RESULTS: At a mean of three years (range, 2.5 to 4.0 years) after surgery, thirty-one patients with sixty-two CALAXO screws and thirty-six patients with seventy-two MILAGRO screws returned for repeat evaluation. Two blinded, independent reviewers found no significant differences between the two screw types when comparing radiographs for tibial or femoral tunnel widening or MRIs for graft integrity, tibial and femoral foreign body reactions, or femoral screw degradation. Both reviewers found a significant difference between the two screw types when comparing tibial screw degradation properties (p < 0.01). All analyzed CALAXO screws were rated as partially intact or degraded; the MILAGRO screws were more likely to be rated as intact. No significant differences were noted between the two screw types when comparing the two KOOS subscales. CONCLUSIONS: CALAXO screws in the tibial tunnel were more likely to be rated as degraded or partially degraded compared with MILAGRO screws at a mean of three years after implantation for ACL reconstruction. Although these newer-generation bioabsorbable screws were designed to promote osseointegration, no tunnel narrowing was noted, and in the majority of cases the remains of the screws were present at approximately three years.

Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort.

BACKGROUND: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has worse outcomes than primary reconstructions. Predictors for these worse outcomes are not known. The Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Group was developed to perform a multisurgeon, multicenter prospective longitudinal study to obtain sufficient subjects to allow multivariable analysis to determine predictors of clinical outcome. PURPOSE: To describe the formation of MARS and provide descriptive analysis of patient demographics and clinical features for the initial 460 enrolled patients to date in this prospective cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: After training and institutional review board approval, surgeons began enrolling patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction, recording patient demographics, previous ACL reconstruction methods, intra-articular injuries, and current revision techniques. Enrolled subjects completed a questionnaire consisting of validated patient-based outcome measures. RESULTS: As of April 1, 2009, 87 surgeons have enrolled a total of 460 patients (57% men; median age, 26 years). For 89%, the reconstruction was the first revision. Mode of failure as deemed by the revising surgeon was traumatic (32%), technical (24%), biologic (7%), combination (37%), infection (<1%), and no response (<1%). Previous graft present at the time of injury was 70% autograft, 27% allograft, 2% combination, and 1% unknown. Sixty-two percent were more than 2 years removed from their last reconstruction. Graft choice for revision ACL reconstruction was 45% autograft, 54% allograft, and more than 1% both allograft and autograft. Meniscus and/or chondral damage was found in 90% of patients. CONCLUSION: The MARS Group has been able to quickly accumulate the largest revision ACL reconstruction cohort reported to date. Traumatic reinjury is deemed by surgeons to be the most common single mode of failure, but a combination of factors represents the most common mode of failure. Allograft graft choice is more common in the revision setting than autograft. Concomitant knee injury is extremely common in this population.