The Delayed Presentation and Diagnosis of Youth Wrestling Injuries: A 20-Year Analysis of National Injury Data.

INTRODUCTION: The nature of wrestling may lead athletes to mask injuries with the delayed presentations of youth wrestling-related injuries not being well characterized. METHODS: This descriptive epidemiological study queried the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database to characterize delayed presentations of wrestling-related injuries in middle and high-school athletes. Data collection consisted of national estimates, demographics, and injury characteristics of patients with delayed (D) presentations (≥1 day) and same-day (S) presentations to US emergency departments after sustaining a wrestling-related injury during the scholastic wrestling season (December to February, 2000 to 2019). RESULTS: Of middle and high-school wrestlers presenting to US emergency departments, 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3% to 7.1%) reported delayed presentations for a total of 1,110 patients (CI, 591 to 1,630) annually. Most commonly (P < 0.001), injuries were sustained on Saturdays in both cohorts (D, 28.2%; CI, 22.4% to 34.8%; S, 29.6%; CI, 24.3% to 35.5%). Patients reporting delayed presentations were less likely to sustain fractures (D, 11.5%; CI, 8.3% to 15.6%; S, 18.9%; CI, 15.0% to 23.5%; P = 0.019) and injuries of the head/neck (D, 20.0%; CI, 16.5 to 24.1%; S, 26.2%; CI, 21.4% to 31.7%; P = 0.011). DISCUSSION: A substantial proportion of adolescent wrestlers report delayed presentations of injuries. This emphasizes the need for vigilance in detecting subtle signs of injury.

Pediatric Fractures Associated With Riding Bicycles: A National 20-year Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biking is a popular childhood activity with an intrinsic risk of injury. While advocacy groups have promoted protective equipment to help mitigate these risks, trends in the national health burden of fractures associated with biking in the pediatric population have not been explored in depth. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database was queried between 2001 and 2020 to identify patients aged 18 years or below with fractures presenting to US emergency departments associated with riding bicycles. The patient narratives were analyzed to exclude patients not actively riding bicycles and to note helmet use and collisions with motor vehicles (MVs). RESULTS: A total of 33,955 fractures were identified in the database, representing an estimated 1,007,714 fractures from 2001 to 2020, or 50,331 fractures annually. Linear regression noted a significant decrease in fractures over the period ( R2 =0.899; P <0.001). Most fractures occurred in patients who were male (71.8%, 95% CI: 70.4% to 73.2%), White (53.1%, 46.0% to 60.0%), and aged 10 to 12 (30.6%, 29.6% to 31.7%) or 13 to 15 years (24.8%, 23.4% to 26.2%). Fractures occurred most frequently in the forearm (25.2%, 22.8% to 27.8%), wrist (21.2%, 19.5% to 22.9%), and shoulder (10.5%, 9.7% to 11.3%). Patients who sustained fractures after being struck by a MV were >6 times more likely to be admitted to the hospital (36.0%, 28.6% to 44.2%) compared with patients not struck by a MV (5.4%, 4.3% to 6.8%). When helmet use was recorded in patients with skull fractures, most patients were not wearing helmets at the time of injury (85.7%, 74.6% to 92.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the national burden of fractures associated with riding bicycles in pediatric populations has steadily decreased, it remains a significant cause of injury for children. Fractures involving MV more often require hospitalization, and an alarming number of skull fractures are noted in children not wearing helmets. These data support continued efforts to promote consistent helmet use and safer riding environments around MV in all children, but especially among 10- to 15-year-old males. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-prognostic.

Removing or Only Moving a Barrier? Screening Applications with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2CK Instead of Step 1 May Benefit Women but Not Underrepresented Minorities in Orthopaedics.

Most orthopaedic surgery program directors report using a minimum score cutoff for the US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 examination when evaluating residency applicants. The transition to a Pass/Fail grading system beginning in the 2022-2023 application cycle will alter applicant evaluation in the interview selection process. The impact of this change, particularly on women and underrepresented minority (URM) applicants, remains unclear. This study was designed to evaluate how a shift to screening applications using Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) instead of Step 1 scores could impact selection for residency interviews. Methods: We reviewed all 855 Electronic Residency Application Service applications submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's orthopaedic surgery residency program in the 2020-2021 cycle. Applicant age, sex, medical school of graduation, self-identified race, and permanent zip code were evaluated for association with Step 1 and Step 2CK scores using a 2-sample t test. A multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to understand the predictive value of demographic features and medical school features on Step 1 and 2CK scores. Results: Multivariable linear regression revealed both Step 1 and 2CK scores were lower for applicants of URM status (Step 1: p < 0.001; Step 2CK: p < 0.001) and from international medical schools (p = 0.043; p = 0.006). Step 1 scores but not Step 2CK scores were lower for applicants who were women (p < 0.001; p = 0.730), ≥30 years of age (p < 0.001; p = 0.079), and from medical schools outside the top 25 in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding or US News and World Report (USNWR) ranking (p = 0.001; p = 0.193). Conclusions: Conversion of Step 1 grading to Pass/Fail may reduce barriers for groups with lower average Step 1 scores (URM, female, ≥30 years of age, and from institutions with lower NIH funding or USNWR rankings). However, if Step 2CK scores replace Step 1 as a screening tool, groups with lower Step 2CK scores, notably URM applicants, may not experience this benefit. Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.