Recovery duration and concussion severity in sport- and non-sport-related concussion among Pac-12 collegiate athletes: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine non-sport- and sport-related concussion severity, clinical care frequency and delayed reporting in relation to recovery duration among collegiate athletes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Pac-12 varsity collegiate athletes. PARTICIPANTS: 461 collegiate male and female athletes PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of sport-related concussion (SRC) and non-sport-related concussion (NRC) were collected as well as times to recovery and return-to-play (RTP), symptom score and symptom severity and reported a loss of consciousness (LOC), retrograde amnesia (RGA) and post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) following concussion incidence. RESULTS: Among 461 concussions, 388 (84%) occurred within sport and 73 (16%) occurred outside of sport. NRC, on average, required 3.5 more days to become asymptomatic (HR: 0.73, 95%confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.96, p=0.02) and 7 more days to RTP (HR: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.85, p<0.01) compared with SRC. NRC were associated with an increase of 1.83 (p=0.07) symptoms reported at the time of diagnosis, an increase of 6.95 (p=0.06) in symptom severity and a higher prevalence of reported LOC (22% NRC vs. 3% SRC, p<0.001), PTA (15% NRC vs. 5% SRC, p<0.01) and RGA (10% NRC vs. 4% SRC, p=0.06), compared with SRC. There was no significant difference in clinical care (p=0.28) or immediate reporting (p=0.35) between NRC and SRC. CONCLUSION: NRC were associated with greater severity and longer recovery duration when compared with SRC in a cohort of collegiate athletes.

Patient Perception of Social Media Use by Orthopaedic Surgeons: A Pilot Study.

Background: Social media (SM) use by orthopaedic surgeons is becoming increasingly common; nonetheless, it needs to be clarified how patients perceive the content posted by physicians. Purpose: To characterize SM content posted by orthopaedic surgeons while investigating patient perceptions of this content and how it may influence their health care decisions. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Posts on SM outlets by orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed and categorized. A survey to assess patient perception of these categories was administered between December 2021 and February 2022 in the clinics of 3 orthopaedic surgeons. Survey results were analyzed for differences in patient SM use and perception of SM content types. Results: There were 250 completed surveys. SM use was high among all age groups; however, the 18 to 24 years (87.1%) and 25 to 34 years (86.4%) age groups were more likely than older age groups to report daily use (P = .002). Overall, 17% of patients reported using SM to see information about their health care at least once per month, 21% reported reviewing the SM account of a physician at least once per month, 19% reported that they were likely or very likely to view the SM account of their physician, and 23% reported that SM content was likely or very likely to influence which physician they see. Patients held the most consistently positive view of posts that educated patients, discussed sports team coverage, and provided patient testimonials. Patients had consistently neutral views of posts educating colleagues, discussing presentations at national meetings, displaying aspects of surgeons' personal lives, and supporting marginalized groups. Several post categories elicited highly polarized responses-including those discussing research publications and showing surgical techniques or pictures/videos taken during surgery. Respondents had a consistently negative response to posts making political statements. Conclusion: SM is likely a useful tool to help physicians interact with patients. Physicians who wish to interact with patients should consider posting content viewed most positively-including posts educating patients, discussing sports team coverage, and providing patient testimonials. Content that is viewed less favorably should be posted sparingly or with a sensitive tag.

Program and Faculty Reputation Are Valued Most by Applicants to Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Fellowships.

Purpose: To determine the top orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States and the most important aspects of fellowship programs as perceived by applicants. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed via e-mail and text message to all current/former orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to one particular orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program during the 2017-2018 through 2021-2022 application cycles. The survey asked applicants to rank what they considered to be the top-10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States before and after completion of their application cycle, based on operative and nonoperative experience, faculty, game coverage, research, and work-life balance. Final rank was calculated by awarding 10 points for a first-place vote, 9 points for a second-place vote, etc., with total number of points used to determine final ranking for each program. Secondary outcomes included rates of applying to perceived top-10 programs, relative importance of different fellowship program aspects, and preferred type of practice. Results: Seven-hundred sixty-one surveys were distributed with 107 applicants responding (14% response rate). Applicants voted the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships programs to be: (1) Steadman Philippon Research Institute, (2) Rush University Medical Center, and (3) Hospital for Special Surgery, both before and following the application cycle. When ranking fellowship program aspects, faculty members and fellowship reputation were most likely to be ranked highest in importance. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that most orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants highly valued program reputation and faculty members when choosing a fellowship program and that the application/interview process did not have a substantial effect on how individuals perceived the top programs. Clinical Relevance: The findings of this study are important for residents applying to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships and may have implications on fellowship programs and future application cycles.

Single- and Double-Loaded All-Suture Anchor Repairs of Anteroinferior Labral Tears Are Biomechanically Similar in a Cadaveric Shoulder Model.

Purpose: To compare the biomechanical strength of single- versus double-loaded all-suture constructs in an anteroinferior glenoid labral repair. Methods: Anteroinferior labral lesions were created on 6 matched pairs of cadaveric shoulder specimens. Each shoulder in a matched pair was randomized to either receive capsulolabral repair with 3 single-loaded all-suture anchors or 3 double-loaded all-suture anchors. Immediately following capsulolabral repair, the specimens underwent mechanical testing, which included cyclic testing (5 N to 50 N for 500 cycles) and load-to-failure testing (rate of 15 mm/min). The gap formation between the repaired labrum and glenoid (measured at 1, 25, 100, and 500 cycles), the load at 2-mm gap formation, the maximum load at failure and the method of failure were recorded. Data were analyzed with paired Student t tests and Bonferroni correction factor. Results: The single and double all-suture constructs did not differ significantly in gap formation at any number of cycles, load to 2-mm gap formation (P = .75), or maximum load to failure (P = .46) between the 2 groups. Conclusions: In this study, single-loaded and double-loaded all-suture anchor constructs demonstrated comparable biomechanical performance and did not significantly differ in gap formation, load to 2-mm gap formation, or maximum load to failure when used in the capsulolabral repair of anteroinferior glenoid labral tears in human cadaveric specimens. Clinical Relevance: Although studies have evaluated the biomechanical properties of various arthroscopic labral stabilization techniques, the biomechanical properties of all-suture anchors with regard to labral stabilization are not well understood.