Both Quadriceps and Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autografts Improve Postoperative Stability and Functional Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To compare postoperative knee stability, functional outcomes, and complications after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) versus quadriceps tendon autograft. Methods: In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published in 2002 or later. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: randomized controlled trials that included patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with BPTB or quadriceps tendon autograft including all soft tissue and bone-quadriceps tendon and in which measures of postoperative stability and functional outcomes were reported. Studies that were not written in English and those that analyzed animals or cadavers, were not randomized controlled trials, or used other grafts (e.g., hamstring) were excluded. Results: The initial search identified 348 studies, 6 of which were included in this systematic review. Two of the six studies found no significant difference in performance outcomes or complications between quadriceps and BPTB autografts. One study found that patients receiving quadriceps autograft self-reported improved knee functional status compared with those receiving BPTB autograft. Another study found that quadriceps autograft resulted in a significantly reduced Quadriceps Index postoperatively compared with BPTB autograft (69.5 vs 82.8, P = .01) but found no difference in postoperative quadriceps strength. An additional study found that the outcomes of quadriceps tendon and BPTB autografts were equivalent per the International Knee Documentation Committee scale, but anterior knee pain was less severe in patients with quadriceps tendon autograft. Furthermore, one study revealed the overall International Knee Documentation Committee score was reported as normal significantly more often in patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with BPTB autograft (85% vs 50%, P < .001) and that donor-site morbidity was greater in patients with quadriceps autograft. No significant difference was found in complications requiring reoperation across studies. Conclusions: Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with either BPTB or quadriceps tendon autograft reported improved postoperative knee stability and functional outcomes. There is no significant difference in complications between quadriceps autograft use and BPTB autograft use. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level III retrospective studies.

Private health insurance in the United States and Sweden: A comparative review.

Background and Aims: The United States of America and Sweden both contain a public and private component to their healthcare systems. While both countries spend a similar amount per capita on public healthcare expenditures, the United States spends significantly more in the private healthcare sector. Sweden has a social democratic model of health care, and given its identity as a welfare state, private health insurance providers have a small and nuanced role. Methods: This paper was completed after searches were queried for "Sweden," "United States," and variants of the words "insurance," "public," "private," "Medicare," "Medicaid," "public," and "costs." A preliminary search in May 2022, yielded 78 articles, of which 45 were ultimately considered relevant for this review. Inclusion criteria consisted of English language articles, topic relevance, and verification of MEDLINE-indexed journals. These searches were performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane. Summary findings of these searches are compiled in this review. Results: Sweden guarantees low-cost appropriate care to all citizens with equitable access; however, drawbacks of its system include high financial burden, lack of primary care infrastructure, as well as geographical and socioeconomic inequities. On the other hand, the United States' healthcare system is built around the private sector with public health insurance reserved only for the most vulnerable patient populations. Conclusion: Our goal is to provide an overview, compare the role of private health insurance in both countries, and highlight policies that have had beneficial effects in each nation. Possible solutions to the drawbacks of each nation's health insurance policies could be addressed by additional support to Sweden's vulnerable population by developing a program similar to the US' Medicare Advantage program. Conversely, the United States may benefit from increasing access to public health insurance, especially in instances where families face unemployment.

Non-pharmacotherapeutic Management of Alcohol Use Disorder in the Alaska Native Population: A Narrative Review.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a leading preventable cause of death in the United States and has had a greater health impact on Alaska Natives than on any other racial group. To date, AUD in these communities has had wide-reaching negative impacts contributing to high rates of suicide, homicide, and accidents. A variety of genetic, experiential, social, and cultural factors have been associated with this trend. For decades, the Alaska Native subgroup has received inadequate treatment. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current trends in effective interventions and to help answer the question: What may comprise a successful non-pharmacotherapeutic interventional strategy to treat and prevent AUD in Alaska Natives? A database literature search was performed in September 2022 using the PubMed library. Search terms included (alcohol use disorder) AND ((Alaska OR Alaskan) Native). Inclusion criteria included full-text articles, a focus on specific non-pharmacotherapeutic treatment strategies, and a publication date after 2005. Studies that did not evaluate non-pharmacotherapeutic interventions, evaluated a population other than Alaska Natives, evaluated a disorder other than AUD, were written in a language other than English, or were editorials or opinion pieces were excluded. The selected studies were assessed for bias utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Twelve studies were included in this review. This review found that early social network intervention, incentive-driven programs, culturally-driven programs, and motivational interviewing are promising non-pharmacotherapeutic interventions in the treatment of AUD in Alaska Native communities. Evidence suggests that a shift in focus to the accentuation of protective factors and the mitigation of isolation as a risk factor, rather than on the reduction of more intractable risk factors, may be associated with improved outcomes in treating AUD. The literature also suggests that successful prevention strategies should be driven by indigenous knowledge and grounded in community and culture. This study has its limitations. These include a lack of direct comparisons between studies, a lack of pooled statistical analysis or synthesis, and a lack of quantitative analysis. Instead, the majority of data is gathered from more bias-prone cross-sectional studies and, thus, should be used to provide insight into potential risk factors and non-pharmacologic therapies effective in this population rather than as strong evidence in favor of one therapeutic regimen over another. For this, there is a need for more clinical trials evaluating treatments for AUD in this population. This review received support from the University of South Florida Department of Psychiatry. There were no sources of funding for this work from any institution. There are no competing financial or non-financial interests that may be interested in this work. This review is not registered. This review does not have a prepared protocol.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of sex-based differences for concussion incidence in soccer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare concussion incidence in male and female soccer players due to the specific concussion-causing activity. METHODS/DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2000 and February 2020. Search terms included 'sex,' 'gender,' 'sex differences,' 'brain injury,' 'sports,' 'athletes,' 'incidence,' 'epidemiology,' 'symptoms,' and 'injury rate.' Studies that contained data on concussion incidence in soccer and featured comparisons by sex and soccer activity were included. Studies that were not written in English, contained data on non-sports-related concussions, or were conference abstracts were excluded. RESULTS: Six studies were included in this meta-analysis, each of which contributed the number of concussions in males and females for a specific soccer activity. Concussion incidence rates were calculated using athlete-exposures as the denominator and a rate ratio was measured by dividing the concussion rate among female soccer players by the rate among male soccer players. Female soccer players were shown to have a greater rate of concussions from heading [1.65 (95% CI: 1.35, 2.03, p < 0.001)] and goalkeeping [1.63 (95% CI: 1.22, 2.17, p = 0.001)]. There were 3 studies comparing sex differences for general play. While the pooled rate ratio was statistically significant [1.51 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.04), p = 0.007], this result was largely driven by 1 study. CONCLUSION: Concussion incidence rates were significantly higher in female soccer players compared to male players while heading. There is also some evidence to suggest that the incidence is higher for female goalkeepers. Soccer coaches and health care providers need to recognize this sex difference when coaching or treating players.

Comparing South Korea and Italy's healthcare systems and initiatives to combat COVID-19.

Italy and South Korea have two distinctly different healthcare systems, causing them to respond to public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in markedly different ways. Differences exist in medical education for both countries, allowing South Korean medical graduates to have a more holistic education in comparison to their Italian counterparts, who specialize in medical education earlier on. Additionally, there are fewer South Korean physicians per 1000 people in South Korea compared to Italian physicians per 1000 people in Italy. However, both countries have a national healthcare system with universal healthcare coverage. Despite this underlying similarity, the two countries addressed COVID-19 in nearly opposite manners. South Korea employed technology and the holistic education of its physician community, despite having a smaller proportion of physicians in society, to its advantage by implementing efficacious drive-through centers that test suspected individuals rapidly and with little to no contact with healthcare staff, decreasing the possibility of transmission of COVID-19. Conversely, Italy is presently considered the epicenter of the outbreak in Europe and has recorded the highest death toll of any country outside of mainland China. This is partially due to the reactionary nature of Italy's public health measures compared to South Korea's proactive response. The different healthcare responses of South Korea and Italy can inform decisions made by public health bodies in other countries, especially in countries across the Americas, which can selectively adopt policies that have worked in curtailing the spread of COVID-19 and learn from mistakes made by both countries.

Italia y Corea del Sur tienen dos sistemas de atención sanitaria claramente diferentes, lo que hace que respondan a crisis de salud pública como la pandemia por COVID-19 de maneras marcadamente distintas. Existen diferencias en la educación médica de ambos países, lo que permite a los graduados de medicina de Corea del Sur tener una educación más holística en comparación con sus homólogos italianos, que siguen una especialización médica de manera más temprana. Además, en Corea del Sur hay menos médicos por cada 1 000 personas en comparación con Italia. Sin embargo, ambos países tienen un sistema nacional de salud con cobertura universal. A pesar de esta similitud subyacente, los dos países abordaron la COVID-19 de maneras casi opuestas. A pesar de contar con una proporción menor de médicos en la sociedad, Corea del Sur empleó la tecnología y la educación holística de su comunidad médica a su favor al implementar centros de examen de personas con sospecha de infección sin descender del automóvil, que permitían una atención rápida y con poco o ningún contacto con el personal de salud, lo que disminuyó la posibilidad de transmisión de la enfermedad. Por el contrario, Italia es considerada actualmente el epicentro del brote en Europa y ha registrado el mayor número de muertes que cualquier otro país fuera de la China continental. Esto se debe en parte a la naturaleza reactiva de las medidas de salud pública de Italia en comparación con la respuesta proactiva de Corea del Sur. Las diferentes respuestas sanitarias de Corea del Sur e Italia pueden orientar las decisiones que deben tomar los organismos de salud pública de otros países, especialmente en la Región de las Américas, que pueden adoptar selectivamente políticas que han funcionado para reducir la propagación de la COVID-19 y aprender de los errores cometidos por ambos países.

A Itália e a Coreia do Sul têm dois sistemas de saúde distintos, o que os leva a responder a crises de saúde pública, como a pandemia COVID-19, de formas marcadamente diferentes. Existem diferenças na educação médica dos dois países, permitindo que os médicos sul-coreanos tenham uma educação mais holística em comparação com os seus homólogos italianos, que seguem uma especialização médica mais cedo. Além disso, há menos médicos por 1 000 pessoas na Coreia do Sul do que em Itália. No entanto, ambos os países têm um sistema nacional de saúde com cobertura de saúde universal. Apesar desta semelhança subjacente, os dois países abordaram a COVID-19 de maneiras quase opostas. Apesar de ter uma proporção menor de médicos na sociedade, a Coreia do Sul utilizou a tecnologia e a educação holística de sua comunidade médica a seu favor, implementando centros de rastreio para pessoas com suspeita de infecção sem sair do carro, o que permitiu cuidados imediatos e pouco ou nenhum contacto com o pessoal de saúde, diminuindo assim a possibilidade de transmissão da COVID-19. Por outro lado, a Itália é atualmente considerada o epicentro do surto na Europa e tem registrado o maior número de mortes de qualquer país fora da China continental. Isto deve-se em parte à natureza reactiva das medidas de saúde pública da Itália em comparação com a resposta pró-ativa da Coreia do Sul. As diferentes respostas de saúde da Coreia do Sul e da Itália podem informar as decisões das agências de saúde pública de outros países, especialmente da Região das Américas, que podem adoptar seletivamente políticas que tenham funcionado na redução da disseminação da COVID-19 e aprender com os erros cometidos por ambos os países.

Comparing South Korea and Italy’s healthcare systems and initiatives to combat COVID-19

[Abstract]. Italy and South Korea have two distinctly different healthcare systems, causing them to respond to public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in markedly different ways. Differences exist in medical education for both countries, allowing South Korean medical graduates to have a more holistic education in comparison to their Italian counterparts, who specialize in medical education earlier on. Additionally, there are fewer South Korean physicians per 1000 people in South Korea compared to Italian physicians per 1000 people in Italy. However, both countries have a national healthcare system with universal healthcare coverage. Despite this underlying similarity, the two countries addressed COVID-19 in nearly opposite manners. South Korea employed technology and the holistic education of its physician community, despite having a smaller proportion of physicians in society, to its advantage by implementing efficacious drive-through centers that test suspected individuals rapidly and with little to no contact with healthcare staff, decreasing the possibility of transmission of COVID-19. Conversely, Italy is presently considered the epicenter of the outbreak in Europe and has recorded the highest death toll of any country outside of mainland China. This is partially due to the reactionary nature of Italy’s public health measures compared to South Korea’s proactive response. The different healthcare responses of South Korea and Italy can inform decisions made by public health bodies in other countries, especially in countries across the Americas, which can selectively adopt policies that have worked in curtailing the spread of COVID-19 and learn from mistakes made by both countries.

[Resumen]. Italia y Corea del Sur tienen dos sistemas de atención sanitaria claramente diferentes, lo que hace que respondan a crisis de salud pública como la pandemia por COVID-19 de maneras marcadamente distintas. Existen diferencias en la educación médica de ambos países, lo que permite a los graduados de medicina de Corea del Sur tener una educación más holística en comparación con sus homólogos italianos, que siguen una especialización médica de manera más temprana. Además, en Corea del Sur hay menos médicos por cada 1 000 personas en comparación con Italia. Sin embargo, ambos países tienen un sistema nacional de salud con cobertura universal. A pesar de esta similitud subyacente, los dos países abordaron la COVID-19 de maneras casi opuestas. A pesar de contar con una proporción menor de médicos en la sociedad, Corea del Sur empleó la tecnología y la educación holística de su comunidad médica a su favor al implementar centros de examen de personas con sospecha de infección sin descender del automóvil, que permitían una atención rápida y con poco o ningún contacto con el personal de salud, lo que disminuyó la posibilidad de transmisión de la enfermedad. Por el contrario, Italia es considerada actualmente el epicentro del brote en Europa y ha registrado el mayor número de muertes que cualquier otro país fuera de la China continental. Esto se debe en parte a la naturaleza reactiva de las medidas de salud pública de Italia en comparación con la respuesta proactiva de Corea del Sur. Las diferentes respuestas sanitarias de Corea del Sur e Italia pueden orientar las decisiones que deben tomar los organismos de salud pública de otros países, especialmente en la Región de las Américas, que pueden adoptar selectivamente políticas que han funcionado para reducir la propagación de la COVID-19 y aprender de los errores cometidos por ambos países.

[Resumo]. A Itália e a Coreia do Sul têm dois sistemas de saúde distintos, o que os leva a responder a crises de saúde pública, como a pandemia COVID-19, de formas marcadamente diferentes. Existem diferenças na educação médica dos dois países, permitindo que os médicos sul-coreanos tenham uma educação mais holística em comparação com os seus homólogos italianos, que seguem uma especialização médica mais cedo. Além disso, há menos médicos por 1 000 pessoas na Coreia do Sul do que em Itália. No entanto, ambos os países têm um sistema nacional de saúde com cobertura de saúde universal. Apesar desta semelhança subjacente, os dois países abordaram a COVID-19 de maneiras quase opostas. Apesar de ter uma proporção menor de médicos na sociedade, a Coreia do Sul utilizou a tecnologia e a educação holística de sua comunidade médica a seu favor, implementando centros de rastreio para pessoas com suspeita de infecção sem sair do carro, o que permitiu cuidados imediatos e pouco ou nenhum contacto com o pessoal de saúde, diminuindo assim a possibilidade de transmissão da COVID-19. Por outro lado, a Itália é atualmente considerada o epicentro do surto na Europa e tem registrado o maior número de mortes de qualquer país fora da China continental. Isto deve-se em parte à natureza reactiva das medidas de saúde pública da Itália em comparação com a resposta pró-ativa da Coreia do Sul. As diferentes respostas de saúde da Coreia do Sul e da Itália podem informar as decisões das agências de saúde pública de outros países, especialmente da Região das Américas, que podem adoptar seletivamente políticas que tenham funcionado na redução da disseminação da COVID-19 e aprender com os erros cometidos por ambos os países.

Comparing South Korea and Italy's healthcare systems and initiatives to combat COVID-19 / Comparación de los sistemas de salud de Corea del Sur e Italia y las iniciativas para combatir la COVID-19 / Comparação entre os sistemas de saúde da Coreia do Sul e da Itália e iniciativas para combater a COVID-19

Italy and South Korea have two distinctly different healthcare systems, causing them to respond to public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in markedly different ways. Differences exist in medical education for both countries, allowing South Korean medical graduates to have a more holistic education in comparison to their Italian counterparts, who specialize in medical education earlier on. Additionally, there are fewer South Korean physicians per 1000 people in South Korea compared to Italian physicians per 1000 people in Italy. However, both countries have a national healthcare system with universal healthcare coverage. Despite this underlying similarity, the two countries addressed COVID-19 in nearly opposite manners. South Korea employed technology and the holistic education of its physician community, despite having a smaller proportion of physicians in society, to its advantage by implementing efficacious drive-through centers that test suspected individuals rapidly and with little to no contact with healthcare staff, decreasing the possibility of transmission of COVID-19. Conversely, Italy is presently considered the epicenter of the outbreak in Europe and has recorded the highest death toll of any country outside of mainland China. This is partially due to the reactionary nature of Italy's public health measures compared to South Korea's proactive response. The different healthcare responses of South Korea and Italy can inform decisions made by public health bodies in other countries, especially in countries across the Americas, which can selectively adopt policies that have worked in curtailing the spread of COVID-19 and learn from mistakes made by both countries.(AU)

Italia y Corea del Sur tienen dos sistemas de atención sanitaria claramente diferentes, lo que hace que respondan a crisis de salud pública como la pandemia por COVID-19 de maneras marcadamente distintas. Existen diferencias en la educación médica de ambos países, lo que permite a los graduados de medicina de Corea del Sur tener una educación más holística en comparación con sus homólogos italianos, que siguen una especialización médica de manera más temprana. Además, en Corea del Sur hay menos médicos por cada 1 000 personas en comparación con Italia. Sin embargo, ambos países tienen un sistema nacional de salud con cobertura universal. A pesar de esta similitud subyacente, los dos países abordaron la COVID-19 de maneras casi opuestas. A pesar de contar con una proporción menor de médicos en la sociedad, Corea del Sur empleó la tecnología y la educación holística de su comunidad médica a su favor al implementar centros de examen de personas con sospecha de infección sin descender del automóvil, que permitían una atención rápida y con poco o ningún contacto con el personal de salud, lo que disminuyó la posibilidad de transmisión de la enfermedad. Por el contrario, Italia es considerada actualmente el epicentro del brote en Europa y ha registrado el mayor número de muertes que cualquier otro país fuera de la China continental. Esto se debe en parte a la naturaleza reactiva de las medidas de salud pública de Italia en comparación con la respuesta proactiva de Corea del Sur. Las diferentes respuestas sanitarias de Corea del Sur e Italia pueden orientar las decisiones que deben tomar los organismos de salud pública de otros países, especialmente en la Región de las Américas, que pueden adoptar selectivamente políticas que han funcionado para reducir la propagación de la COVID-19 y aprender de los errores cometidos por ambos países.(AU)

A Itália e a Coreia do Sul têm dois sistemas de saúde distintos, o que os leva a responder a crises de saúde pública, como a pandemia COVID-19, de formas marcadamente diferentes. Existem diferenças na educação médica dos dois países, permitindo que os médicos sul-coreanos tenham uma educação mais holística em comparação com os seus homólogos italianos, que seguem uma especialização médica mais cedo. Além disso, há menos médicos por 1 000 pessoas na Coreia do Sul do que em Itália. No entanto, ambos os países têm um sistema nacional de saúde com cobertura de saúde universal. Apesar desta semelhança subjacente, os dois países abordaram a COVID-19 de maneiras quase opostas. Apesar de ter uma proporção menor de médicos na sociedade, a Coreia do Sul utilizou a tecnologia e a educação holística de sua comunidade médica a seu favor, implementando centros de rastreio para pessoas com suspeita de infecção sem sair do carro, o que permitiu cuidados imediatos e pouco ou nenhum contacto com o pessoal de saúde, diminuindo assim a possibilidade de transmissão da COVID-19. Por outro lado, a Itália é atualmente considerada o epicentro do surto na Europa e tem registrado o maior número de mortes de qualquer país fora da China continental. Isto deve-se em parte à natureza reactiva das medidas de saúde pública da Itália em comparação com a resposta pró-ativa da Coreia do Sul. As diferentes respostas de saúde da Coreia do Sul e da Itália podem informar as decisões das agências de saúde pública de outros países, especialmente da Região das Américas, que podem adoptar seletivamente políticas que tenham funcionado na redução da disseminação da COVID-19 e aprender com os erros cometidos por ambos os países.(AU)