Search

The incidence of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in young to middle-aged athletes remains high. Despite early diagnosis and appropriate operative and nonoperative treatments, posttraumatic degenerative arthritis may develop. In [...]

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are published by several sports medicine institutions. A systematic evaluation can help identify the highest quality CPGs for clinical use and identify any deficiencies that remain. Purpose: To identify and appraise CPGs relevant to clinical sports medicine professionals. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: Predetermined selection criteria were utilized by 2 reviewers who independently identified published CPGs before January 1, 2014. CPGs were excluded if they focused on injured workers, radiological criteria, medical pathology, or the axial skeleton (back/neck). The remaining guidelines were scored by 6 reviewers with different clinical backgrounds using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Scores lower than 50% indicated deficiency. Scores were also stratified by the publishing institution and anatomic location and compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the range of interobserver agreement between the evaluators. Results: Seventeen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of guidelines pertained to the knee, ankle, or shoulder. Interobserver agreement was strong (r = 0.548-0.740), and mean total scores between nonsurgical (107.8) and surgical evaluators (109.3) were not statistically different. Overall guideline quality was variable but not deficient for 16 of 17 guidelines (>50%), except regarding clinical “applicability” and “editorial independence.” No difference was found between CPGs of the knee, shoulder, foot/ankle, or chronic conditions. However, CPG publishing institutions had significantly different scores; the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines scored significantly higher (141.4) than the total mean score (108.0). Conclusion: The overall quality of sports medicine CPGs was variable but generally not deficient, except regarding applicability and editorial independence. Bias through poor editorial independence is a concern. To improve future guideline quality, authors should pay particular attention to these areas and use existing highest quality guidelines, or the AGREE II instrument, as templates. CPGs dedicated to anatomic areas other than the knee, ankle, and shoulder are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of anatomic Bankart repair in patients with a first-time shoulder dislocation compared with either arthroscopic lavage or traditional sling immobilization., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and a clinical trials registry for ongoing and completed randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing anatomic Bankart repair with either rehabilitation or arthroscopic lavage. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed by use of a random-effects model, and risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed., Results: We included 3 randomized trials and 1 quasi-randomized trial comprising 228 patients. Of the included trials, 2 compared anatomic Bankart repair with sling immobilization whereas 2 compared Bankart repair with arthroscopic lavage. A meta-analysis of all 4 trials showed that the rate of recurrent instability was significantly lower among participants undergoing anatomic Bankart repair compared with those undergoing either immobilization or arthroscopic lavage (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.33). Subgroup analysis showed that this effect persisted when Bankart repair was compared with arthroscopic lavage alone (2 studies) (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.31) or sling immobilization alone (2 studies) (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.67). Western Ontario Shoulder Instability scores were better with anatomic Bankart repair compared with either arthroscopic lavage or immobilization (2 studies) (mean difference, -232; 95% CI, -317 to -146)., Conclusions: There is evidence to suggest treatment of young patients with a first-time shoulder dislocation with anatomic Bankart repair with the goal of lowering the rate of recurrent instability over the long-term and improving short-term quality of life., Level of Evidence: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies., (Copyright © 2012 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)