Clinical Commentary: A Criteria-Based Testing Protocol for Return to Sport Post Hip Arthroscopy for Impingement.

Overall, 84%-87% of athletes will return to sport following hip arthroscopy; however, some literature suggests that only 57% of athletes return to their preinjury level, and only 16.9% report optimal performance. This discrepancy may be due to a lack of consistency within the definition of return to sport as well as a lack of consistency within rehabilitation programs when determining return to sport readiness. Athletes who are returning to sport must demonstrate adequate range of motion, strength, and the ability to perform multi-directional movements without the risk of reinjury. There has yet to be a comprehensive, criteria-based, return to sport testing protocol that utilizes objective measures to ensure athletes are ready for return to sport. The goal of the authors was to create a criteria-based testing protocol for return to sport following hip arthroscopy utilizing components best supported in the literature. The following parameters were identified as key areas to assess for within a return to sport testing protocol: range of motion, strength, functional testing, self-reported outcomes including psychological readiness and time. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to propose a criteria-based testing protocol to be used following hip arthroscopy for impingement from early rehabilitation through return to previous level of sport. Criteria are presented clearly to promote objective progression through rehabilitation while still being mindful of the biological healing time required for safe and efficient progression. It is the authors' hope that in identifying and establishing a criteria-based testing protocol a higher percentage of athletes will be able to return to sport. Level of Evidence: 5.

Team Approach: Virtual Care in the Management of Orthopaedic Patients.

¼: Telemedicine and remote care administered through technology are among the fastest growing sectors in health care. The utilization and implementation of virtual-care technologies have further been accelerated with the recent COVID-19 pandemic. ¼: Remote, technology-based patient care is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution for all medical and surgical conditions, as each condition presents unique hurdles, and no true consensus exists regarding the efficacy of telemedicine across surgical fields. ¼: When implementing virtual care in orthopaedics, as with standard in-person care, it is important to have a well-defined team structure with a deliberate team selection process. As always, a team with a shared vision for the care they provide as well as a supportive and incentivized environment are integral for the success of the virtual-care mechanism. ¼: Future studies should assess the impact of primarily virtual, integrated, and multidisciplinary team-based approaches and systems of care on patient outcomes, health-care expenditure, and patient satisfaction in the orthopaedic population.

Predictors of Pelvic Floor Muscle Dysfunction Among Women With Lumbopelvic Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that a large proportion of individuals seeking care for lumbopelvic pain also have pelvic floor muscle dysfunction (PFMD). Because the majority of physical therapists do not have the requisite training to adequately assess pelvic floor musculature, determining predictors of PFMD could be clinically useful. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to establish a combination of factors (self-report and physical) predictive of PFMD in women with lumbopelvic pain. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Participants completed a battery of self-report and physical assessments (masked assessors). Three clinical findings characterized PFMD: weakness of the pelvic floor, lack of coordination of the pelvic floor, and pelvic floor muscle tenderness on palpation (bilateral obturator internus). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the extent to which different predictors were associated with PFMD. RESULTS: One hundred eight women with self-reported lumbopelvic pain (within the past week) were included in the study (mean age = 40.4 years; SD = 12.6 years). None of the examined factors predicted pelvic floor muscle weakness. Two factors independently predicted pelvic floor muscle tenderness on palpation: very strong and/or uncontrollable urinary urges (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-7.59) and Central Sensitization Inventory scores of 40 or greater (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 1.08-9.10). LIMITATIONS: The sample consisted of young women, some of whom were not actively seeking care. Additionally, the technique for assessing pelvic floor muscle tenderness on palpation requires further validation. CONCLUSIONS: Women who have lumbopelvic pain, uncontrollable urinary urgency, and central sensitization were, on average, 2 times more likely to test positive for pelvic floor muscle tenderness on palpation. Further studies are needed to validate and extend these findings.

So that is how it works? How observing a clinical process improved the management perspectives of non-clinical staff.

In 2018, the Brant Community Healthcare System completed an 8-day study on patient flow with non-clinical staff observing multiple patient journeys from the point of emergency presentation to inpatient admission to discharge. Following the project, a mixed-methods research study was conducted to understand the experience of non-clinical staff observers. This article will share what non-clinical staff learned from observing the patient journey, how it changed their understanding of clinical workflow, and how it would impact their future approach as non-clinical professionals. Results also led to a discussion on the management implications of utilizing non-clinical observers to audit clinical processes, how to improve non-clinical professional development, how to improve recruitment of non-clinical staff, and how to reduce barriers to collaboration between clinical and non-clinical professionals.

Intra-articular Injections in the Treatment of Symptoms from Ankle Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular (IA) injections are commonly used to treat knee arthritis pain; however, whether their efficacy generalizes to ankle arthritis remains debatable. We aimed to evaluate the evidence for IA therapies in the management of this patient population. METHODS: We performed a literature search for observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatments included corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC). We extracted study details, patient demographics, treatment characteristics, efficacy outcomes, and safety. When feasible, data from RCTs were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies (1085 patients). Ankle OA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and hemophilic arthropathy populations were examined. The majority of studies were observational (20 studies); the only RCTs were those evaluating HA. Case series demonstrated favorable results in terms of symptomatic relief with CS, HA, PRP, and MSC injections; however, the effects of CS may only be short term and the evidence on MSCs was limited to 1 study with 6 ankle OA patients. Pooled results (3 RCTs, 109 patients) suggested significantly improved Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale scores with HA over saline at 6 months, with a mean difference of 12.47 points (95% CI 1.18-23.77, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Evidence from small trials favors HA and PRP injections for the treatment of pain associated with ankle osteoarthritis. However, the relative efficacy of all injectable therapies is far from definitive and warrants further high-quality comparative trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review.

Reliability and validity of two versions of the upper extremity functional index.

PURPOSE: To examine the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the 20-item version and the Rasch-refined 15-item version of the Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI-20 and UEFI-15, respectively) and to determine the impact of arm dominance on the positive minimal clinically important difference (pMCID). METHODS: Adults with upper-extremity (UE) dysfunction completed the UEFI-20, Upper Extremity Functional Scale (UEFS), Pain Limitation Scale, and Pain Intensity Scale at their initial physiotherapy assessment (Time 1); 24-48 hours later (Time 2); and 3 weeks into treatment or at discharge, whichever came first (Time 3). Demographics, including working status, were obtained at Time 1. Global ratings of change (GRC) were provided by the treating physiotherapist and patient at Time 3. The UEFI-15 was calculated from relevant items in the UEFI-20. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) quantified test-retest reliability (Time 1-Time 2). Cross-sectional convergent validity was determined by the association (Pearson's r) between Time 1 measures of function and pain. Known-groups validity was evaluated with a one-way ANOVA across three levels of working status. Longitudinal validity was determined by the association (Pearson's r) between function and pain change scores (Time 1-Time 3). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves estimated the pMCID using Time 1-Time 3 change scores and average patient/therapist GRC. RESULTS: Reliability for the UEFI-20 and UEFI-15 was the same (ICC=0.94 for both measures). MDC values were 9.4/80 for the UEFI-20 and 8.8/100 for the UEFI-15. Cross-sectional, known-groups, and longitudinal validity were confirmed for both UEFI measures. pMCID values were 8/80 for the UEFI-20 and 6.7/100 for the UEFI-15; pMCID was higher for people whose non-dominant arm was affected. CONCLUSIONS: Both UEFI measures show acceptable reliability and validity. Arm dominance affects pMCID. The UEFI-15 is recommended because it measures only one dimension: UE function.

Objectif : Étudier la fiabilité, la validité et la sensibilité au changement des versions à 20 questions et à 15 questions raffinées par Rasch de l'Indice fonctionnel des membres supérieurs (IFMS-20 et IFMS-15, respectivement) et déterminer l'effet du bras dominant sur la différence minimale positive cliniquement importante (pDMCI). Méthodes : Les adultes ayant une dysfonction des membres supérieurs (MS) ont répondu au questionnaire IFMS-20, aux questionnaires de l'Échelle fonctionnelle des membres supérieurs (EFMS), de l'Échelle de limitation de la douleur et de l'Échelle de l'intensité de la douleur au cours de leurs premières évaluations en physiothérapie (moment 1); de 24 à 48 heures plus tard (moment 2) et 3 semaines après le début du traitement ou le congé, selon l'échéance la plus rapprochée (moment 3). On a réuni des données démographiques, y compris sur leur état de travailleur, au cours du moment 1. Le physiothérapeute traitant et le patient ont fourni des évolutions globales du changement (EGC) au moment 3. On a calculé le résultat du questionnaire IFMS-15 à partir de questions pertinentes contenues dans la version IFMS-20. Le coefficient de corrélation intracatégorie (CCI) et le changement détectable minimal (CDM) ont quantifié la fiabilité de test­retest (moment 1­moment 2). La validité convergente transversale a été déterminée par le lien (r de Pearson) entre les mesures de fonction et de douleur prises au moment 1. On a évalué la validité des groupes connus au moyen d'une analyse bidirectionnelle des écarts (ANOVA) entre trois niveaux d'état de fonctionnement. La validité longitudinale a été déterminée en fonction du lien (r de Pearson) entre les scores de changement de la fonction et de la douleur (moment 1­moment 3). Des courbes des caractéristiques opérationnelles du récepteur (COR) ont estimé la pDMCI à partir des scores de changement entre le moment 1 et le moment 3 et les EGC moyennes patient/thérapeute. Résultats : La fiabilité des questionnaires IFMS-20 et IFMS-15 a été la même (CCI=0,94 pour les deux mesures). Les valeurs du CDM se sont établies à 9,4/80 pour le questionnaire IFMS-20 et à 8,8/100 pour le questionnaire IFMS-15. La validité transversale, de groupes connus et longitudinale a été confirmée pour les deux mesures de l'IFMS. Les valeurs de la pDMCI s'établissaient à 8/80 pour le questionnaire IFMS-20 et à 6,7/100 pour le questionnaire IFMS-15; la pDMCI était plus élevée chez les personnes dont le bras non dominant était atteint. Conclusions : Les deux mesures de l'IFMS montrent une fiabilité et une validité acceptables. Le bras dominant a un effet sur la pDMCI. On recommande le questionnaire IFMS-15 parce qu'il mesure une dimension seulement: la fonction des membres supérieurs.

Clinical specialists and advanced practitioners in physical therapy: a survey of physical therapists and employers of physical therapists in ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Opportunities to expand the role of physical therapists (PTs) have evolved to include clinical specialists and advanced practitioners, although the literature on these roles is limited. We examined perceptions of PTs and PT employers in Ontario regarding clinical specialization and advanced practice. METHODS: Using a modified Dillman approach, a cross-sectional survey was conducted with 500 PTs and 500 PT employers in Ontario. Questionnaires were tailored to address specific issues related to each cohort. RESULTS: Sixty percent of PTs and 53% of PT employers responded to the survey. Thirty-three percent of PT respondents already considered themselves "clinical specialists" (CS), and 8% considered themselves "advanced practitioners" (AP), although neither role is yet formally recognized in Canada. Both groups had substantial interest in pursuing formal recognition of CS and AP status. Respondents indicated that their primary motivation to pursue such roles was to enhance clinical reasoning skills with the goal of improving client outcomes (82% for the role of CS, 71% for the role of AP). Respondents supported the involvement of academic institutions in the process (60% for CS, 70% for AP). CONCLUSION: PTs and PT employers are supportive of the roles of the CS and AP within the profession, even though there is currently no formal recognition of either role in Canada.