Adhesions After Hip Arthroscopy Are Associated With Revision But Show Poorly Defined Criteria for Diagnosis and Operative Management: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the current body of evidence surrounding the diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes of adhesions that developed after hip arthroscopy (HA). METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was designed and conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with confirmed adhesions after HA that reported one or more of the following: (1) diagnostic procedures and criteria used; (2) indications for and details surrounding surgical management; and (3) clinical outcomes after the operative management of adhesions (e.g., patient-reported outcome measures). RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving a total of 4,145 patients (4,211 hips; 38% female sex) were included in this review. The quality of evidence was found to be fair for both comparative studies (mean, 17; range, 13-21) and noncomparative studies (mean, 10; range, 5-12) according to the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) instrument, with the level of evidence ranging from IIB to IV. Adhesions were often diagnosed intraoperatively at the time of revision surgery (10 of 19 studies, 53%), with only 3 studies specifying the criteria used to adjudicate adhesions. The most common indication for operative management (i.e., release or lysis of adhesions) was persistent pain (9 of 19, 47%), but this was often grossly stated for revision HA rather than being specific to adhesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were the most reported postoperative outcomes (9 of 19, 47%) and generally showed significant improvement from preoperative assessment across the short-term follow-up period (range, 24.5-38.1 months). There was a paucity of objective measures of clinical improvement (3 of 19, 16%) and of mid- and long-term follow-up (i.e., 5-7 years and ≥10 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that adhesions are highly contributory to revision HA, there is ambiguity in the diagnostic approach and indications for operative management of adhesions. Additionally, although the operative management of adhesions after HA has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes in the short term, there is a paucity of research elucidating the mid- to long-term outcomes, as well as minimal use of objective assessment of clinical improvement (e.g., biomechanics). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Longitudinal Monitoring of Biomechanical and Psychological State in Collegiate Female Basketball Athletes Using Principal Component Analysis.

Background: The growth in participation in collegiate athletics has been accompanied by increased sport-related injuries. The complex and multifactorial nature of sports injuries highlights the importance of monitoring athletes prospectively using a novel and integrated biopsychosocial approach, as opposed to contemporary practices that silo these facets of health. Methods: Data collected over two competitive basketball seasons were used in a principal component analysis (PCA) model with the following objectives: (i) investigate whether biomechanical PCs (i.e., on-court and countermovement jump (CMJ) metrics) were correlated with psychological state across a season and (ii) explore whether subject-specific significant fluctuations could be detected using minimum detectable change statistics. Weekly CMJ (force plates) and on-court data (inertial measurement units), as well as psychological state (questionnaire) data, were collected on the female collegiate basketball team for two seasons. Results: While some relationships (n = 2) were identified between biomechanical PCs and psychological state metrics, the magnitude of these associations was weak (r = |0.18-0.19|, p < 0.05), and no other overarching associations were identified at the group level. However, post-hoc case study analysis showed subject-specific relationships that highlight the potential utility of red-flagging meaningful fluctuations from normative biomechanical and psychological patterns. Conclusion: Overall, this work demonstrates the potential of advanced analytical modeling to characterize components of and detect statistically and clinically relevant fluctuations in student-athlete performance, health, and well-being and the need for more tailored and athlete-centered monitoring practices.

Monitoring lower limb biomechanical asymmetry and psychological measures in athletic populations-A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Lower limb biomechanics, including asymmetry, are frequently monitored to determine sport performance level and injury risk. However, contributing factors extend beyond biomechanical and asymmetry measures to include psychological, sociological, and environmental factors. Unfortunately, inadequate research has been conducted using holistic biopsychosocial models to characterize sport performance and injury risk. Therefore, this scoping review summarized the research landscape of studies concurrently assessing measures of lower limb biomechanics, asymmetry, and introspective psychological state (e.g., pain, fatigue, perceived exertion, stress, etc.) in healthy, competitive athletes. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science Core Collections was designed and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Fifty-one articles were included in this review. RESULTS: Significant relationships between biomechanics (k = 22 studies) or asymmetry (k = 20 studies) and introspective state were found. Increased self-reported pain was associated with decreased range of motion, strength, and increased lower limb asymmetry. Higher ratings of perceived exertion were related to increased lower limb asymmetry, self-reported muscle soreness, and worse jump performance. Few studies (k = 4) monitored athletes longitudinally throughout one or more competitive season(s). CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for concurrent analysis of introspective, psychological state, and biomechanical asymmetry measures along with longitudinal research to understand the contributing factors to sport performance and injury risk from biopsychosocial modeling. In doing so, this framework of biopsychosocial preventive and prognostic patient-centered practices may provide an actionable means of optimizing health, well-being, and sport performance in competitive athletes.

Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how distinct combinations of resistance training prescription (RTx) variables (load, sets and frequency) affect muscle strength and hypertrophy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised trials that included healthy adults, compared at least 2 predefined conditions (non-exercise control (CTRL) and 12 RTx, differentiated by load, sets and/or weekly frequency), and reported muscle strength and/or hypertrophy were included. ANALYSES: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis methodology was used to compare RTxs and CTRL. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were used to rank conditions. Confidence was assessed with threshold analysis. RESULTS: The strength network included 178 studies (n=5097; women=45%). The hypertrophy network included 119 studies (n=3364; women=47%). All RTxs were superior to CTRL for muscle strength and hypertrophy. Higher-load (>80% of single repetition maximum) prescriptions maximised strength gains, and all prescriptions comparably promoted muscle hypertrophy. While the calculated effects of many prescriptions were similar, higher-load, multiset, thrice-weekly training (standardised mean difference (95% credible interval); 1.60 (1.38 to 1.82) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for strength, and higher-load, multiset, twice-weekly training (0.66 (0.47 to 0.85) vs CTRL) was the highest-ranked RTx for hypertrophy. Threshold analysis demonstrated these results were extremely robust. CONCLUSION: All RTx promoted strength and hypertrophy compared with no exercise. The highest-ranked prescriptions for strength involved higher loads, whereas the highest-ranked prescriptions for hypertrophy included multiple sets. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021259663 and CRD42021258902.

The Ecological Validity of Countermovement Jump to On-Court Asymmetry in Basketball.

Jump-based asymmetry is often used as an indicator of sport performance and may be used to discern injury susceptibility. Due to task specificity, however, countermovement jump asymmetry may not be representative of on-court asymmetry. As such, we assessed the association between countermovement jump asymmetry and on-court impact asymmetry metrics (n=3, and n=4, respectively) using linear regressions (α=0.05). Fifteen female basketball athletes completed countermovement jump and on-court sessions across a competitive season. A significant negative association was found between peak landing force asymmetry and both overall and medium acceleration on-court asymmetry (b=-0.1, R 2 =0.08, p<0.001; b=-0.1, R 2 =0.11, p<0.001, respectively), as well as between peak propulsive force asymmetry and on-court medium acceleration asymmetry (b=-0.24, R 2 =0.04, p=0.01). Alternatively, both peak landing and peak propulsive force asymmetry were significantly positively associated with on-court high acceleration asymmetry (b=0.17, R 2 =0.08, p<0.001; b=0.35, R 2 =0.02, p=0.04, respectively). While some overlap may exist, countermovement jump and on-court impact asymmetry appear to be independent. Thus, sport-specific monitoring may be necessary to adequately monitor injury susceptibility using asymmetry.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-small-cell lung cancer pathologic stage and presentation.

BACKGROUND: It is believed that the cessation of normative cancer care services during the COVID-19 pandemic may be resulting in pathologic upstaging and higher long-term mortality rates. We aimed to understand how the pandemic has affected our patients diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective analysis to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient referrals, pathologic stage of NSCLC, mortality rates and surgical procedures at our cancer care centre in Ontario, Canada. At our centre, physicians advocated for and followed recommendations that operations in cancer patients should be among the last procedures to be delayed. Patients were included if they were aged 18 years or older, were not receiving palliative care, and had been screened, diagnosed and treated for NSCLC (primary tumours). We compared outcomes between a prepandemic period (January 2019 to February 2020) and a period during the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). RESULTS: A total of 695 patients were included for statistical analysis, of whom 650 underwent surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in any of the outcomes of interest between patients seen before (n = 330) and during (n = 320) the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Cancer care services at our centre were maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential adverse effects on prognosis and survival that have been seen in other countries were avoided. The results inform health care providers how the effects of future pandemics can be blunted by using proactive preservative strategies and surgeon advocacy.