Training Background and Demographic Characteristics of Primary Care Team Physicians in Professional Sports.

Background: Previous studies have shown that most professional head and orthopaedic team physicians are men, and most orthopaedic team physicians are fellowship-trained. It is unknown whether this holds true for primary care team physicians. Purpose: To evaluate the residency and fellowship training background as well as the demographic characteristics of primary care team physicians in professional sports. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Publicly available information was used to determine the lead and supporting primary care team physicians for every US-based team in Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League, National Women's Soccer League, and Women's National Basketball Association. Data regarding training background and sex were obtained using internet-based sources. Results: We identified 310 primary care team physicians from all 165 US-based teams in the 7 leagues included in the study. Female physicians comprised 11.5% (19/165) of the lead primary care team physicians and 14.2% (44/310) of all primary care team physicians. Overall, 66.7% (110/165) of lead primary care team physicians and 75.5% (234/310) of all primary care team physicians were sports medicine fellowship-trained. There was a higher proportion of female (37.5%) and fellowship-trained (93.8%) physicians in women's professional sports leagues. Most primary care team physicians (244/310 [78.7%]) were trained in family medicine or internal medicine. Conclusion: Women constituted a small minority of primary care team physicians in professional sports. Most primary care team physicians were residency trained in family medicine or internal medicine and were sports medicine fellowship-trained. The proportion of female and fellowship-trained primary care team physicians was highest in the National Women's Soccer League and the Women's National Basketball Association.

The Safety of the Volar Intraarticular Extended Window (VIEW) Approach for Intra-articular Distal Radius Fractures.

BACKGROUND: A novel volar approach to intra-articular distal radius fractures has been introduced for treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures, in which volar extrinsic ligaments are released to create a volar window into the radiocarpal joint (Volar Intraarticular Extended Window [VIEW] approach). Our purpose was to evaluate the safety of VIEW approach for treatment of intra-articular distal radius fractures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for 13 patients with intra-articular distal radius fractures treated operatively with the VIEW surgical technique using an intra-articular window in the volar capsule to aid in reduction and fixation. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for ulnocarpal translocation by assessing lunate uncovering and radial-carpal distance. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were treated with the VIEW approach with mean follow-up of 28 weeks (range, 7-67 weeks; SD, 18 weeks). The mean postoperative lunate uncovering was 34.6% (SD, 7.7%) and mean radial-carpal distance was 4.6 mm (SD, 1.5 mm). Postoperatively, mean intra-articular step-off was 0.9 mm (SD, 1.2 mm) and mean intra-articular gap was 1.2 mm (SD, 1.0 mm). No patients reported clinical symptoms of wrist instability. CONCLUSIONS: Using the VIEW approach during a volar approach to intra-articular distal radius fractures is safe and does not lead to carpal instability. Surgeons can consider using the approach when direct visualization of the articular surface may be beneficial for reduction or fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Has the Use of Electrodiagnostic Studies for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Changed After the 2016 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline?

PURPOSE: A 2016 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guideline (CPG) de-emphasized the need for electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We tested the hypothesis that use of EDS decreased after the AAOS CPG. METHODS: Using a national administrative claims database, we measured the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of CTS who underwent EDS within 1 year after diagnosis between 2011 and 2019. Using an interrupted time series design, we defined 2 time periods (pre-CPG and post-CPG) and compared EDS usage between the periods using segmented regression analysis. We conducted a subgroup analysis of preoperative EDS usage in patients who underwent carpal tunnel release. RESULTS: Of 2,081,829 patients with CTS, 315,449 (15.2%) underwent EDS within 1 year after diagnosis. The segmented regression analysis showed a decrease in the level of EDS usage after publication of the AAOS CPG (-11.50 per 1,000 patients [95% CI, -1.47 to -0.95 per 1,000 patients]); however, the rate of EDS usage increased in the post-CPG period (+1.75 per 1,000 patients per quarter [95% CI, 0.97-2.54 per 1,000 patients per quarter]). Of 473,753 eligible patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, 139,186 (29.4%) underwent EDS within 6 months before surgery. After publication of the AAOS CPG, preoperative EDS usage decreased by -23.57 per 1,000 patients (95% CI, -37.72 to -9.42 per 1,000 patients). However, these decreasing trends in EDS usage predated the 2016 AAOS CPG. CONCLUSIONS: The overall and preoperative EDS usage for CTS has been decreasing since at least 2014, predating the 2016 AAOS CPG, reflecting the rapid implementation of evidence into practice. However, EDS usage has increased in the post-CPG period, and a considerable proportion of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release still received EDS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given its high costs and disputed value, routine EDS usage should be considered for further deimplementation initiatives.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity in NCAA Division I Student Athletes vs Nonathletes at 12 Institutions.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic initially led to the abrupt shutdown of collegiate athletics until guidelines were established for a safe return to play for student athletes. Currently, no literature exists that examines the difference in SARS-CoV-2 test positivity between student athletes and nonathletes at universities across the country. Objective: To identify the difference in risk of COVID-19 infection between student athlete and nonathlete student populations and evaluate the hypothesis that student athletes may display increased SARS-CoV-2 test positivity associated with increased travel, competition, and testing compared with nonathletes at their respective universities. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional analysis, a search of publicly available official university COVID-19 dashboards and press releases was performed for all 65 Power 5 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I institutions during the 2020 to 2021 academic year. Data were analyzed at the conclusion of the academic year. Schools that released at least 4 months of testing data, including the fall 2020 football season, for student athletes and nonathlete students were included in the analysis. Power 5 NCAA Division I student athletes and their nonathlete student counterparts were included in the analysis. Exposure: Designation as a varsity student athlete. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for student athletes and nonathlete students at the included institutions for the 2020 to 2021 academic year, measured as a relative risk for student athletes. Results: Among 12 schools with sufficient data available included in the final analysis, 555 372 student athlete tests and 3 482 845 nonathlete student tests were performed. There were 9 schools with decreased test positivity in student athletes compared with nonathlete students (University of Arkansas: 0.01% vs 3.52%; University of Minnesota: 0.63% vs 5.96%; Penn State University: 0.74% vs 6.58%; Clemson University: 0.40% vs 1.88%; University of Louisville: 0.75% vs 3.05%; Purdue University: 0.79% vs 2.97%; University of Michigan: 0.40% vs 1.12%; University of Illinois: 0.17% vs 0.40%; University of Virginia: 0.64% vs 1.04%) (P < .001 for each). The median (range) test positivity in these 9 schools was 0.46% (0.01%-0.79%) for student athletes and 1.04% (0.40%-6.58%) for nonathlete students. In 1 school, test positivity was increased in the student athlete group (Stanford University: 0.20% vs 0.05%; P < .001). Overall, there were 2425 positive tests (0.44%) among student athletes and 30 567 positive tests (0.88%) among nonathlete students, for a relative risk of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.48-0.52; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in student athlete test positivity between included schools; however, test positivity among nonathlete students varied considerably between institutions, ranging from 133 of 271 862 tests (0.05%) at Stanford University to 2129 of 32 336 tests (6.58%) at Penn State University. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 transmission mitigation protocols implemented by the NCAA, participation in intercollegiate athletics was not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. This finding suggests that collegiate athletics may be held without an associated increased risk of infection among student athletes.

The influence of vector-borne disease on human history: socio-ecological mechanisms.

Vector-borne diseases (VBDs) are embedded within complex socio-ecological systems. While research has traditionally focused on the direct effects of VBDs on human morbidity and mortality, it is increasingly clear that their impacts are much more pervasive. VBDs are dynamically linked to feedbacks between environmental conditions, vector ecology, disease burden, and societal responses that drive transmission. As a result, VBDs have had profound influence on human history. Mechanisms include: (1) killing or debilitating large numbers of people, with demographic and population-level impacts; (2) differentially affecting populations based on prior history of disease exposure, immunity, and resistance; (3) being weaponised to promote or justify hierarchies of power, colonialism, racism, classism and sexism; (4) catalysing changes in ideas, institutions, infrastructure, technologies and social practices in efforts to control disease outbreaks; and (5) changing human relationships with the land and environment. We use historical and archaeological evidence interpreted through an ecological lens to illustrate how VBDs have shaped society and culture, focusing on case studies from four pertinent VBDs: plague, malaria, yellow fever and trypanosomiasis. By comparing across diseases, time periods and geographies, we highlight the enormous scope and variety of mechanisms by which VBDs have influenced human history.