Search

Background: A paucity of information is available regarding the clinical outcomes of patients with radiological evidence of Kaplan fiber (KF) injury who undergo anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare clinical and functional outcomes in patients undergoing acute primary ACLR with and without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of KF injury. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in clinical or functional outcomes in patients with versus those without radiological evidence of KF injury. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: MRI analysis was conducted on patients in a longitudinal prospective study of ACL injury. Only patients who had an MRI scan and had undergone isolated primary ACLR within 60 days of injury were included. MRI was performed using standard knee protocols, and diagnostic criteria were applied to identify KF injury. A total of 32 patients with KF injury (mean age, 24.2 years; 21 male, 11 female) were identified and matched for sex, age, graft type, and preinjury activity with 90 patients who had intact KF. Patients were followed up at 12 months with KT-1000 arthrometer measurements of side-to-side difference in anterior knee laxity, single- and triple-hop limb symmetry index (LSI), Marx activity and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and return to sport (RTS) rates at 12 months and 24 months. Results: No differences were found in anterior knee laxity and single- and triple-hop LSI values between the KF-intact and KF-injured cohorts at 12 months. No differences in Marx and IKDC scores were found between the groups at 12 months and 2 years. The overall rate of RTS within 24 months was 75% (92/122), and 5 patients (2 KF-injured; 3 KF-intact) had a subsequent graft rupture. Conclusion: We found no difference in clinical or functional outcomes in patients with and without radiological evidence of KF injury who underwent acute primary ACLR. Based on these findings, the radiological presence of KF injury at the time of acute ACL injury should not be regarded as a risk factor for a negative prognosis after ACLR.

Unfortunately, discrimination against pregnant workers and new mothers still abounds. Focus on these issues both in research and in the popular press (e.g. Hymowitz, 2013) has driven some organizat...

What does it mean to be a high-performance company? The process of measuring relative performance across industries and eras, declaring top performers, and finding the common drivers of their success is such a difficult one that it might seem a fool's errand to attempt. In fact, no one did for the first thousand or so years of business history. The question didn't even occur to many scholars until Tom Peters and Bob Waterman released In Search of Excellence in 1982. Twenty-three years later, we've witnessed several more attempts--and, just maybe, we're getting closer to answers. In this reported piece, HBR senior editor Julia Kirby explores why it's so difficult to study high performance and how various research efforts--including those from John Kotter and Jim Heskett; Jim Collins and Jerry Porras; Bill Joyce, Nitin Nohria, and Bruce Roberson; and several others outlined in a summary chart-have attacked the problem. The challenge starts with deciding which companies to study closely. Are the stars the ones with the highest market caps, the ones with the greatest sales growth, or simply the ones that remain standing at the end of the game? (And when's the end of the game?) Each major study differs in how it defines success, which companies it therefore declares to be worthy of emulation, and the patterns of activity and attitude it finds in common among them. Yet, Kirby concludes, as each study's method incrementally solves problems others have faced, we are progressing toward a consensus theory of high performance.

A recent Forbes.com article states that “Women must take a special interest in supporting other women in order to help make gender equality in business a reality” (Perkett, 2014). But to what extent do women actually serve as catalysts for reducing inequality? As women now hold about fifty-percent of all management positions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013) and are becoming the majority of new entrants in high-status professions, such as medicine (American Association of Medical Colleges, 2013), management scholars are beginning to examine the impact of women leaders, in particular, on gender inequality (e.g. Hoff 2010; Perkins, Phillips & Pearce, 2013; Powell & Butterfield, 2013). Given the pervasiveness of gender inequality in terms of wages, job segregation, and access to resources, for example, it becomes pertinent to understand whether women leaders provide a potential lever for reducing this form of inequality. Thus, our proposed panel symposium will address the following central questions: What r...