The Influence of Time of Season on Injury Rates and the Epidemiology of Canadian Football Injuries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe injury rates and injury patterns in the Canadian Football League (CFL) according to time during the season, player position, injury type, and injury location. DESIGN: Prospective, cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight seasons from CFL injury surveillance database. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Depending on the analysis, time of season (preseason, regular, and playoffs), player position, injury type, and injury location. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical attention and time-loss injury rates per 100 athletes at risk (AAR), and prevalence of time-loss injuries per week. RESULTS: The average game injury rate was 45.2/100 AAR medical attention injuries and 30.7/100 AAR time-loss injuries. Injury rates declined by 1% per week over the season for both medical attention (rate ratio = 0.99) and time-loss (rate ratio = 0.99) injuries, with a substantial decline during the playoffs compared with preseason (rate ratio = 0.70-0.77). The number of ongoing time-loss injuries increased over the course of the regular season. Quarterbacks, offensive backs, and linebackers had the highest game injury rates. Joint/ligament and muscle/tendon injuries were the most common injury types for games and practices, respectively. The lower extremity was the most commonly affected area, specifically the lower leg/ankle/foot and hip/groin/thigh. CONCLUSIONS: There was a 1% decline in injury rate per week during the season and a 30% decline during the playoffs. The number of ongoing time-loss injuries increased over the regular season. Current results can aid league officials and medical staff in making evidence-based decisions concerning player safety and health.

Ultrasound-guided hip joint injections are more accurate than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the accuracy of ultrasound (US)-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections. METHODS: PubMed, Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched up to 31 July 2014. Two independent authors selected studies assessing accuracy of intra-articular hip injections based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected papers were then evaluated for quality and a meta-analysis of accuracy was performed using random effects models. RESULTS: 4 US-guided (136 hip injections) and 5 landmark-guided (295 hip injections) studies were reviewed. The weighted means for US-guided and landmark-guided hip injection accuracies were 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and 72% (95% CI 56% to 85%), respectively. US-guided hip injection accuracy was significantly higher than landmark-guided accuracy (p<0.0001). SUMMARY: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of US-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections that has revealed that US-guided injections are significantly more accurate than those that are landmark guided. Future studies should compare US with fluoroscopic-guided hip joint injections for accuracy, efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.