Search

Background: Patient sex is known to affect patient outcomes in sports medicine. Historically, many studies on athletes have focused on male athletes and been generalized to female athletes., Hypothesis: Studies with female first or senior authors will isolate female athletes as study participants more frequently than studies with male first or senior authors., Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocols, original research studies published between 2017 and 2021 that analyzed athletes were systematically screened from the 6 top sports medicine journals ( British Journal of Sports Medicine ; Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery ; Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy ; American Journal of Sports Medicine ; Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ; Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach ). Articles were included for analysis if they met the following criteria: (1) original sports medicine research study, (2) analysis involving athletes, and (3) inclusion of ≥10 participants. Exclusion criteria included (1) review articles of any type and (2) cadaveric studies. The determination of author sex was completed using the name-to-gender assignment algorithm Genderize.io (https://genderize.io/)., Results: A total of 1146 studies were included in quantitative analysis. There were 246 studies with a female first author (21.5%) and 191 studies with a female senior author (16.7%). When looking at all authors (first, senior, and intermediate), 19.9% were female. Female first authors were over 4 times more likely to isolate female athletes in clinical research than male first authors (17.5% vs 3.8%, respectively; P < .001). Female senior authors were approximately twice as likely to isolate female athletes compared with male senior authors (11.5% vs 5.8%, respectively; P < .001)., Conclusion: Female first authors were significantly more likely to perform research isolating female athletes. While improving the frequency of female athlete research is multifactorial, increasing the number of female researchers may have a direct effect on improving gender equality in sports medicine research., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: K.B.F. has received consulting fees from DePuy, Vericel, Medical Device Business Services, and Innocoll and support for education from Liberty Surgical. M.E.B. has received support for education from Gotham Surgical, Smith & Nephew, and Arthrex and research support from Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: Female sports participation continues to rise; however, inequalities between male and female athletes still exist in many areas and may extend into medical research., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare the number of published studies evaluating male versus female athletes in various sports and (2) identify which co-ed sports currently underrepresent female athletes in the sports medicine literature., Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: All nonreview research studies published from 2017 to 2021 in 6 top sports medicine journals were considered for inclusion. Sports medicine studies were included that isolated athletes, reported study outcomes specific to male and/or female patients, provided study outcomes for specific sports, and evaluated ≤3 different sports. The total number of studies reporting on male and/or female athletes were compared for all sports, and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Comparisons of study design, level of sports participation, outcomes assessed, and study quality were also made according to participant sex., Results: Overall, 669 studies were included the systematic review. Most studies isolated male athletes (70.7%), while 8.8% isolated female athletes and 20.5% included male and female athletes. Female athletes were more frequently studied in softball and volleyball, while male athletes were more commonly researched in baseball, soccer, American football, basketball, rugby, hockey, and Australian football. Notably, male athletes were largely favored in baseball/softball (91% vs 5%; OR = 18.2), rugby (72% vs 5%; OR = 14.4), soccer (65% vs 15%; OR = 4.3), and basketball (58% vs 18%; OR = 3.2)., Conclusion: Sports medicine research has favored the evaluation of male athletes in most sports, including the majority of co-ed sports. Potential reasons for this inequality of research evaluation include availability of public data and database data, financial and promotional incentives, a high percentage of male sports medicine clinicians and researchers, and sex biases in sport. While the causes of these differences are multifaceted, researchers should consider both sexes for study inclusion whenever possible, and journals should support a more balanced representation of research publications regarding male and female athletes., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: K.B.F. has received consulting fees from Medical Device Business Services and Innocoll Inc, support for education from Liberty Surgical, honoraria from Vericel, and personal fees from DePuy. M.E.B. has received support for education from Smith & Nephew and Gotham Surgical Solutions, hospitality payments from Stryker, and a grant from Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: Sex differences in sports medicine are well documented. However, no studies to date have reviewed the rate at which sex is reported and analyzed in the athlete-specific orthopaedic sports medicine literature., Purpose: To determine the rates of reporting and analyzing patient sex in athlete-specific sports medicine literature., Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: Articles published by the 3 journals of the AOSSM ( American Journal of Sports Medicine [ AJSM ], Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine , and Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach ) between 2017 and 2021 were considered for inclusion. Original sports medicine research studies that isolated athletes were included. Studies that isolated sports that are predominantly single sex at the college and/or professional levels (football, baseball, softball, and wrestling) were excluded., Results: Of the 5140 publications screened, 559 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 93.9% of all studies reported patient sex, and 34.7% of all studies analyzed patient sex. However, 143 studies only included males and 50 studies only included females (n = 193). When excluding these single-sex studies, analysis of the remaining 366 studies found that the rate of sex-specific analysis increased to 53.0%. Rates of reporting patient sex did not significantly differ by journal or by year. Similarly, rates of analyzing patient sex did not differ by year, but Sports Health analyzed sex the most frequently, and AJSM analyzed sex the least frequently ( P = .002). Studies that isolated college (84.1%), youth (66.7%), or recreational (52.6%) athletes analyzed sex at or above the overall rate of 53.0%, but studies of elite athletes (35.7%) tended to analyze sex less frequently., Conclusion: Patient sex is well reported in the athlete-specific sports medicine literature (93.9% of included studies reported sex), demonstrating that most studies include sex as a demographic variable. However, patient sex was analyzed only in 53.0% of studies that included both male and female patients. Given that athlete-specific sex differences are known to exist within the field of sports medicine, many studies that could benefit from using patient sex as a variable for analysis likely fail to do so.

Background: Both beach-chair and lateral decubitus patient positioning are often utilized for shoulder arthroscopy, with each offering its unique advantages and disadvantages. The surgical position is often selected according to each surgeon's preference, with no clear superiority of one position over the other., Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes between patients who underwent arthroscopic posterior labral repair in the beach-chair versus the lateral decubitus position. We hypothesized that patient positioning would not affect clinical and patient-reported outcomes., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: A list of all patients diagnosed with the Current Procedural Terminology codes 29806 and 29807 between 2015 and 2019 was obtained from the medical records. Patients were only included if arthroscopic posterior labral repair with or without concomitant superior labral anterior to posterior repair was confirmed. Data collected for eligible patients included the number of anchors used, perioperative and postoperative complications, redislocations, subjective instability, reoperation, and revision. Patients were also contacted to complete several patient-reported outcome surveys. Preoperative data, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent surgery in the beach-chair versus lateral decubitus position., Results: Overall, 126 patients were included-69 patients underwent surgery in the lateral decubitus position and 57 in the beach-chair position-with a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.7 years. There were no significant pre- or perioperative differences between groups. Rates of postoperative dislocations, subjective instability, reoperations, revisions, all complications, and return to sports rates also did not differ between groups (all, P > .05). Finally, there was no difference between groups regarding postoperative pain, function, and subjective instability scores (all, P > .05). Results of the multivariate regression analysis showed that increased age was a weak independent risk factor for subjective recurrent posterior shoulder instability (odds ratio, 1.04; P = .036)., Conclusion: Surgical positioning for arthroscopic posterior shoulder labral repair did not affect postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Both beach-chair and lateral decubitus position provided good outcomes for posterior shoulder labral repair, with an overall recurrence rate of 8.7%. Increased age was a weak independent risk factor for subjective recurrent instability.

Background: Biceps tendon pathology is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. Leaving biceps pathology untreated in rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) may lead to suboptimal outcomes., Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RCR versus patients who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps treatment. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes between groups., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: A total of 244 patients who underwent RCR in 2016 were included. Patient characteristics, presence of concomitant biceps pathology, pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, rotator cuff failure, revision surgery, and complications were recorded., Results: There were no significant differences between patients who underwent isolated RCR (n = 143) and those who underwent RCR with biceps treatment (n = 101) at 2 years postoperatively in ASES scores (RCR, 81.5; RCR+biceps treatment, 79.5; P = .532), cuff failure rate (5.6% vs 4.0%; P = .760), revision RCR rate (3.5% vs 2.0%; P = .703), or complication rate (11.9% vs 5.0%; P = .102). Furthermore, when comparing concomitant biceps tenotomy (n = 30) versus concomitant biceps tenodesis (n = 71), there were no differences in ASES scores ( P = .149), cuff failure rate ( P > .999), revision RCR rate ( P > .999), or complication rate ( P > .999) postoperatively. Finally, when comparing arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (n = 50) versus subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 21), there were no differences in ASES scores ( P > .592), cuff failure rate ( P > .999), revision RCR rate ( P = .507), or complication rate ( P > .999) 2 years postoperatively., Conclusion: Addressing biceps pathology when performing RCR resulted in similar rates of cuff failure, revision RCR, and complications, as well as a similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes when compared with isolated RCR at 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, when comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis and arthroscopic versus subpectoral tenodesis, comparable outcomes with regard to rate of rotator cuff repair failure, revision RCR, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were found.

Background: Although most anterior tibial stress fractures heal with nonoperative treatment, some may require surgical management. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been conducted regarding surgical treatment strategies for the management of chronic anterior tibial stress fractures from which general conclusions can be drawn regarding optimal treatment in high-performance athletes., Purpose: This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the surgical outcomes of anterior tibial stress fractures in high-performance athletes., Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: In February 2017, a systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases was performed to identify studies that reported surgical outcomes for anterior tibial stress fractures. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were screened, and reported outcome measures were documented., Results: A total of 12 studies, published between 1984 and 2015, reporting outcomes for the surgical treatment of anterior tibial stress fractures were included in this review. All studies were retrospective case series. Collectively, surgical outcomes for 115 patients (74 males; 41 females) with 123 fractures were evaluated in this review. The overall mean follow-up was 23.3 months. The most common surgical treatment method reported in the literature was compression plating (n = 52) followed by drilling (n = 33). Symptom resolution was achieved in 108 of 123 surgically treated fractures (87.8%). There were 32 reports of complications, resulting in an overall complication rate of 27.8%. Subsequent tibial fractures were reported in 8 patients (7.0%). Moreover, a total of 17 patients (14.8%) underwent a subsequent procedure after their initial surgery. Following surgical treatment for anterior tibial stress fracture, 94.7% of patients were able to return to sports., Conclusion: The available literature indicates that surgical treatment of anterior tibial stress fractures is associated with a high rate of symptom resolution and return to play in athletes, although the high complication rate and potential need for subsequent procedures are important considerations for surgeons and patients.