Search

Purpose: Research surrounding the biomechanics and video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries at the professional level has emerged in recent years as a tool to screen athletes for potential biomechanical deficits. The purpose of this study was to analyze and discuss the most common mechanism, body position, and activity at the time of ACL injury among NBA players., Methods: Anterior cruciate ligament injuries over 10 consecutive NBA seasons (2009-2010 to 2019-2020) were reviewed from publicly available sources. A 10-question survey was developed and utilized to analyze each video clip. These questions were divided into three categories: 1. contact mechanism, 2. activity at the time of injury, and 3. position of the involved lower extremity at the time of injury. Two reviewers analyzed the videos individually, and differing answers were resolved via consensus review, with a senior author arbitrating in the case of any discrepancies., Results: Overall, 23 ACL ruptures were included. The most common injury mechanism was indirect contact with another player without knee contact (56.5%), and no patients had an ACL rupture as a result of direct knee contact with another player. The most common action at the time of injury was pivoting (47%), and the most common basketball action was dribbling (43.5%). Additionally, the vast majority of patients were injured while on offense (91.3%). The most common knee positions were early flexion (73.9%) and abduction (95.7%). The most common foot positions were abduction relative to the knee (82.6%), in eversion (73.9%), and dorsiflexion (56.5%). The most common hip position was early flexion (87%), and all hips were abducted (100%)., Conclusion: Our study found that the majority of ACL ruptures occurred during offensive play and over half were secondary to contact with an opposing player (but without a direct blow to the injured knee), indicating that such perturbations may alter the kinematics of the players' movement. Additionally, a large majority of ACL injuries occurred while the hip was abducted with the knee in abduction relative to the hip and while the knee was in early flexion from 0° to 45°.

Background: The gold-standard method for collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is the prospective assessment of preoperative to postoperative change. However, this method is not always feasible because of unforeseen cases or emergencies, logistical and infrastructure barriers, and cost issues. In such cases, a retrospective approach serves as a potential alternative, but there are conflicting conclusions regarding the reliability of the recalled preoperative PROs after orthopaedic procedures., Purpose: To assess the agreement between prospectively and retrospectively collected PROs for a common, low-risk procedure., Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between May 2012 and September 2017 at the study institution were identified. All of the patients completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Standard Shoulder Assessment Form preoperatively at their preassessment appointment. Patients were then contacted in the postoperative period and asked to recall their preoperative condition while completing another ASES form., Results: A total of 84 patients completed the telephone survey and were included in this analysis (mean age, 57.40 ± 9.96 years). The mean duration of time from onset of shoulder symptoms to surgery was 9.13 ± 9.08 months. The mean duration of time between surgery and recall ASES administration was 39.12 ± 17.37 months. The mean recall ASES score was significantly lower than the preoperative ASES score (30.69 ± 16.93 vs 51.42 ± 19.14; P < .001). There was poor test-retest reliability between preoperative ASES and recall ASES (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.292; 95% CI, -0.07, 0.57; P = .068). Greater age at the time of recall, a shorter symptomatic period before surgery, and less severe preoperative shoulder dysfunction were associated with a greater difference between preoperative ASES and recall ASES., Conclusion: Retrospectively reported PROs are subject to significant recall bias. Recalled PROs were almost always lower than their prospectively recorded counterparts. Recalled PROs are more likely to be accurate when reported by younger patients, those with a longer duration of symptoms, and those with more severe preoperative conditions.