Search

Objective: The association between knee injury and knee osteoarthritis (OA) is understudied relative to its importance, particularly in younger populations. This study was undertaken to examine the association of knee injury with radiographic features of knee OA in military officers, who have a physically demanding profession and high rates of knee injury. Methods: Participants were recruited in 2015–2017 from an existing program that enrolled 6,452 military officers during 2004–2009. Officers with a history of knee ligament or meniscal injuries (n = 117 via medical record review) were compared to officers with no history of knee injury (n = 143). Bilateral posteroanterior knee radiographs were obtained using a standardized fixed‐flexion positioning frame. All images were read for Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade, osteophyte (OST), and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores. Data were analyzed using linear‐risk regression models with generalized estimating equations. Results: Injured and noninjured participants were similar (mean age 28 years, mean body mass index 25 kg/m2, ~40% female). The mean time from first knee injury to imaging among injured participants was 9.2 years. Compared with noninjured knees, greater prevalence of radiographic OA (K/L grade ≥ 2), OST (grade ≥ 1), and JSN (grade ≥ 1) was observed among injured knees, with prevalence differences of +16% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 10%, 22%), +29% (95% CI 20%, 38%), and + 17% (95% CI 10%, 24%), respectively. Approximately 1 in 6 officers with prior knee injury progressed to radiographic OA by age 30 years. Conclusion: At the midpoint of a projected 20‐year military career, officers with a history of traumatic knee injury have a markedly increased prevalence of knee radiographic OA compared to officers without injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Youth athletes may be at elevated risk for adverse health due to sport specialization. Sport organizations have developed guidelines for participation during growth and development. Objective: To assess youth sport development guidelines using a 15-item framework across sport organizations and governing bodies in soccer, basketball, ice hockey, and swimming. Data Sources: English-language results from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2018, from published sport organization guidelines and athlete development plans. Study Selection: Two investigators independently reviewed publications identified from sport organizations. A total of 23 guidelines were incorporated, including 5 general sport organizations and 18 sport-specific guidelines. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently identified all recommendations that fit within a predetermined rubric of recommendations encompassing 4 domains: Psychological Development/Approach, Physical Development/Load, Facilities and Resources, and Timing and Monitoring of Specialization. Sport-specific guidelines on volume were summarized. Results: Sport organizations and sport-specific guidelines had consensus on 2 items out of the 15-item: emphasis on early skill development and access to well-trained coaches. While recommended by all sports organization, multisport participation was emphasized by 3 of 4 sports, excluding soccer. Volume recommendations were inconsistent between and within sports. No group proposed methods to monitor athlete well-being. Conclusion: This review highlights areas of agreement within sport organizations and governing bodies. Creating a framework to guide youth sport specialization may lead to specific and consistent guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Youth sport specialization may place young athletes at increased risk for negative impacts to their physical and/or psychological health. In response to these health concerns, several health organizations have created guidelines and position statements to guide parents and practitioners toward best practices for management of the young athlete. Objective: To systematically review and synthesize current organizations' recommendations and guidelines regarding youth sport specialization. Data Sources: English-language articles from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2018, in the NCBI Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases. Study Selection: Articles that reported on recommendations or interventions by health organizations or health representatives of sports organizations. A total of 56 articles were assessed, with 11 meeting inclusion eligibility criteria. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently identified all recommendations within the results that fit within a 15-item framework encompassing 4 domains: Psychological Development/Approach, Physical Development/Load, Facilities and Resources, and Timing and Monitoring of Specialization. Results: Recommendations across organizations were primarily clustered in the Physical Development/Load (43%), Facilities and Resources (48%), and Sport Specialization (55%) domains. In contrast, the Psychological Development/Approach domain had fewer recommendations (20%). The most common recommendations endorsed concepts: "Monitor athlete well-being," "Youth athletes need access to well-trained, quality coaches," "Multi-sport participation," "Limit early organized participation and/or training," and "Parents require awareness of training, coaching, and best practices." The level of evidence provided to support a given recommendation varied significantly. The level of detail and the consistency of terms used throughout the results were typically low. Recommendations were frequently made without reference to potential outcome measures or specific strategies that could be used for practical implementation in the community. Conclusion: There was broad representation of different aspects of specialization but limited consistency between health organization guidelines. Adopting a framework for recommendations as used in this review could assist organizations in structuring future recommendations that are specific, measurable, and framed in a manner that will promote action in the youth sport community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The impact, positive or negative, of youth sport specialisation (YSS) on short-term and long-term performance is not fully understood; however, the desire to maximise performance goals is generally considered the primary reason children and adolescents specialise at a young age. We performed a systematic review of original research to establish the association of YSS and task-focused or career-focused performance outcomes.Design: Systematic review.Data Sources: Databases searched include PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus.Eligibility Criteria: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2018 that reported original findings on the association of YSS and performance outcomes. Studies without an explicit measure of sport specialisation, for example, volume measures without measuring sport specialisation, were excluded.Results: Twenty-two articles were included in the final review; 15 addressed career performance outcomes and 7 considered task performance outcomes. All identified studies were cross-sectional or retrospective in design. The proportion of elite athletes who specialised early ranged between 7% and 85%, depending on sport and definition of specialisation. Elite athletes often specialised between the ages of 14 and 15 compared with their non-elite or semi-elite peers who typically specialised prior to 13 years. In addition, neuromuscular control, anterior reach asymmetry and physical task outcomes did not differ by specialisation status.Conclusion: The volume and methodological rigour of published research in this field are limited. Our review suggests that YSS is not required to achieve success at elite levels. YSS also does not appear to improve task-related performance (eg, anterior reach, neuromuscular control) outcomes for specialised athletes when compared with non-specialised athletes during childhood and adolescence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Musculoskeletal injuries (MSK-I) in the U.S. military accounted for more than four million medical encounters in 2017. The Military Entrance Processing Screen to Assess Risk of Training (MEPSTART) was created to identify MSK-I risk during the first 180 days of military service.Methods: Active duty applicants to the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps between February 2013 and December 2014 who consented completed a behavioral and injury history questionnaire and the MEPSTART screen [Functional Movement Screen (FMS), Y-Balance Test (YBT), Landing Error Scoring System (LESS), and Overhead Squat assessment (OHS)] the day they shipped to basic training. Male (n = 1,433) and Female (n = 281) applicants were enrolled and MSK-I were tracked for 180 days. Binomial logistic regression and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to assess relationships among MEPSTART screens and MSK-I independent of age, BMI, sex, Service, injury history, and smoking status. Analyses were finalized and performed in 2017.Results: The only functional screen related to injury was the LESS score. Compared to those with good LESS scores, applicants with poor LESS scores had lower odds of MSK-I (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.30-0.97, p = 0.04), and a lower instantaneous risk of MSK-I during the first 180 d (HR = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.34-0.96, p = 0.04). However, secondary receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses revealed poor discriminative value (AUC = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.43-0.54).Conclusions: Functional performance did not predict future injury risk during the first 180 days of service. Poor LESS scores were associated with lower injury risk, but ROC analyses revealed little predictive value and limited clinical usefulness. Comprehensive risk reduction strategies may be preferable for mitigating MSK-I in military training populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]