ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common orthopaedic injury, and the incidence of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) continues to increase. Current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recognize the role of psychological factors in rehabilitation, but patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) and psychological readiness are rarely incorporated into rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to highlight the importance of psychological health after ACL injury, understand the current metrics used to monitor psychological recovery, and outline how psychological recovery can be better incorporated in current CPGs. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA); 63 studies were identified with a PubMed search using the term "ACL Injuries/psychology". STUDY SELECTION: Exclusion criteria included lack of consideration of psychological effects or studies validating PROs after ACLR. Studies were reviewed by multiple reviewers, and a total of 38 studies were included after applying exclusion criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3b. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers analyzed the included articles to extract sample size, psychological readiness scale or other measures used, and key results. RESULTS: Psychological outcomes, especially kinesiophobia and fear of reinjury, are seen commonly after ACLR. Psychological factors were shown to impede return to sport (RTS), alter measurable knee biomechanics, and potentially increase the risk for re-rupture. Targeted interventions such as kinesiotaping, knee bracing, and imagery training can help improve psychological and functional testing after ACLR. CONCLUSION: ACLR is often complicated by psychological factors. Psychological readiness is a crucial yet often unincorporated part of rehabilitation. Patients with higher levels of kinesiophobia and lower psychological readiness to RTS specifically should be identified to allow for administration of interventions, such as imagery training, knee bracing, or kinesiotaping, that can mitigate the negative effects of psychological outcomes and improve recovery.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Greulich and Pyle is the most used system to estimate skeletal maturity but has significant drawbacks, prompting the development of newer skeletal maturity systems, such as the modified Fels skeletal maturity systems based on knee radiographs. To create a new skeletal maturity system, an outcome variable, termed a "skeletal maturity standard," must be selected for calibration of the system. Peak height velocity and 90% of final height are both considered reasonable skeletal maturity standards for skeletal maturity system development. We sought to answer two questions: (1) Does a skeletal maturity system developed using 90% of final height estimate skeletal age as well as it would if it was instead developed using peak height velocity? (2) Does a skeletal maturity system developed using 90% of final height perform as well in lower extremity length prediction as it would if it was instead developed using peak height velocity? Methods: The modified Fels knee skeletal maturity system was recalibrated based on 90% of final height and peak height velocity skeletal maturity standards. These models were applied to 133 serially obtained, peripubertal antero-posterior knee radiographs collected from 38 subjects. Each model was used to estimate the skeletal age of each radiograph. Skeletal age estimates were also used to predict each patient's ultimate femoral and tibial length using the White-Menelaus method. Results: The skeletal maturity system calibrated with 90% of final height produced more accurate skeletal age estimates than the same skeletal maturity system calibrated with peak height velocity (p < 0.05). The 90% of final height and peak height velocity models made similar femoral and tibial length predictions (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Using the 90% of final height skeletal maturity standard allows for simpler skeletal maturity system development than peak height velocity with potentially more accuracy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control defines work-related musculoskeletal disorders as disorders of the nerves, muscles, tendons, joints, spinal discs, and cartilage that are caused or exacerbated by the environment or nature of work. Previous meta-analyses have characterized work-related musculoskeletal disorders among interventionists, general surgeons, and other surgical subspecialties, but prevalence estimates, prognosis, and ergonomic considerations vary by study and surgical specialty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the career prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (2) What is the treatment prevalence associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (3) What is the disability burden of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (4) What is the scope of orthopaedic surgical ergonomic assessments and interventions? METHODS: A systematic review of English-language studies from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was performed in December 2022 and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that presented prevalence estimates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders or assessed surgical ergonomics in orthopaedic surgery were included. Reviews, case reports, gray literature (conference abstracts and preprints), and studies with mixed-surgeon (nonorthopaedic) populations were excluded. The search yielded 5603 abstracts; 24 survey-based studies with 4876 orthopaedic surgeons (mean age 48 years; 79% of surgeons were men) were included for an analysis of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, and 18 articles were included for a descriptive synthesis of ergonomic assessment. Quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Tool revealed that studies had a low to moderate risk of bias, largely because of self-reporting survey-based methodology. Because of considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias, prevalence outcomes were not pooled and instead are presented as ranges (mean I 2 = 91.3%). RESULTS: The career prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons ranged from 37% to 97%. By anatomic location, the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the head and neck ranged from 4% to 74%; back ranged from 9% to 77%; forearm, wrist, and hand ranged from 12% to 54%; elbow ranged from 3% to 28%; shoulder ranged from 3% to 34%; hip and thigh ranged from 1% to 10%; knee and lower leg ranged from 1% to 31%; and foot and ankle ranged from 4% to 25%. Of orthopaedic surgeons reporting work-related musculoskeletal disorders, 9% to 33% had a leave of absence, practice restriction or modification, or early retirement, and 27% to 83% received some form of treatment. Orthopaedic surgeons experienced biomechanical, cardiovascular, neuromuscular, and metabolic stress during procedures. Interventions to improve orthopaedic surgical ergonomics have been limited, but have included robotic assistance, proper visualization aids, appropriate use of power tools, and safely minimizing lead apron use. In hip and knee arthroplasty, robotic assistance was the most effective in improving posture and reducing caloric expenditure. In spine surgery, proper use of surgical loupes was the most effective in improving posture. CONCLUSION: Although the reported ranges of our main findings were wide, even on the low end of the reported ranges, work-related musculoskeletal disability among orthopaedic surgeons appears to be a substantial concern. We recommend that orthopaedic residency training programs incorporate surgical ergonomics or work injury lectures, workshops, and film review (alongside existing film review of surgical skills) into their curricula. We suggest hospitals engage in shared decision-making with surgeons through anonymous needs assessment surveys to implement wellness programs specific to surgeons' musculoskeletal needs. We urge institutions to assess surgeon ergonomics during routine quality assessment of novel surgical instruments and workflows. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.
