Exciting changes in the Scientific Forum this year

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/02/2019 - 10:14

The Scientific Forum of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress has evolved since the concept was first introduced as the Surgical Forum in 1951. This year’s Scientific Forum will build on these transformations and will offer attendees greater exposure to the surgical research conducted by the ACS community.

Background

The Surgical Forum was established in 1951 to provide a supportive venue for trainees and junior faculty to present and discuss their research. Presenting at the Forum has always been a rite of passage for aspiring academic surgeon-scientists. In 1993, the Surgical Forum was renamed to honor the program founder, Owen H. Wangensteen, MD, PhD, FACS, past-chair, department of surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

As surgical science evolved, the Program Committee developed a separate Scientific Papers session for established investigators and Fellows who were not early in their career. As these two programs evolved, it became increasingly clear that there was substantial overlap. In 2014, the Surgical Forum and Scientific Papers merged into a single entity under the oversight of the existing Surgical Forum Committee.

The merged program was renamed the Scientific Forum to reflect the contributions of the Surgical Forum and the Scientific Papers, and the committee was renamed the Scientific Forum Committee. Because of the increase in scientific abstracts resulting from this merger, the committee expanded its membership to reflect the type of scientific abstracts in the broader program. The basic and translational research focus of the Surgical Forum was expanded to include clinical research in health services, education, global surgery, ethics, and other evolving areas of surgical science.

These changes have revitalized the scientific effort. The number and quality of the abstracts submitted to the Scientific Forum has grown significantly—more than 2,000 abstracts were submitted for review for Clinical Congress 2018.

The spirit of the Surgical Forum has been maintained in the new Scientific Forum, continuing with the clustering of focused areas of research to encourage discussion and collaboration among the attendees. The Program Committee continues to place great emphasis on highlighting the work of young investigators while incorporating the expertise of senior investigators into the sessions.
 

Changes at Clinical Congress 2017

Quick Shots and e-Posters were introduced at Clinical Congress 2017 in San Diego, CA. Quick Shots are three-minute oral abstract presentations, which were incorporated into the Scientific Forum sessions. This addition, which allowed for more presenters in a session, was met with a positive reception.

The poster sessions were restructured to an electronic format. The e-Posters were placed in a central, dedicated location among the Scientific Forum sessions rather than the Exhibit Hall. The modern e-Poster sessions brought greater visibility to the poster presentations and energized the format. In the e-Poster room, special sessions were scheduled to highlight the exceptional research efforts of the surgical trainees through the Excellence in Research Awards and the Posters of Exceptional Merit. In addition, the Scientific Forum is dedicated to a senior surgeon-scientist who has demonstrated a career-long commitment to training surgeon-scientists and the academic mission.

To further promote and support surgical research, the Scientific Forum Committee partnered with the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS) to solicit the highest-rated abstracts for publication in JACS. In the first year, the top 5 percent of abstracts in the clinical sciences were solicited for manuscript submissions. More than half of those authors submitted a manuscript for review. All accepted manuscripts will be electronically published concurrently with the ACS Clinical Congress 2018 to provide greater visibility to the high-quality research being generated by the ACS community.
 

 

 

Clinical trials session added in 2018

The Scientific Forum Committee strongly believes the Clinical Congress is the premier venue to present practice-changing research. New for 2018, a call for late-breaking clinical trials abstracts was issued, and the committee selected six clinical trials that have the potential to change practice and improve patient care. This new clinical trials session will be presented at Clinical Congress 2018 Monday, October 22, at 9:45 am.

The ACS Clinical Congress is the largest surgical meeting in the U.S. The vision of the Scientific Forum Committee is for leaders of surgical trials to view the Clinical Congress as the premier venue to present their results. These exciting and transformative changes to the Scientific Forum will bring greater exposure to the leading-edge research in clinical care, while continuing to support and encourage young surgeon-scientists—the future of the study and practice of surgery—in their work. ♦
 

Note

The authors of this article are part of the Owen H. Wangensteen Scientific Forum Committee—Mary T. Hawn, MD, FACS; Edith Tzeng, MD, FACS; and Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, are members, and M. Jane Burns, MJHL; Richard V. King, PhD; and Ajit K. Sachdeva, MD, FACS, FRCSC, are ACS staff.



Dr. Hawn is professor of surgery and chair, department of surgery, Stanford University, CA. She is Chair, ACS Scientific Forum Committee.

Dr. Tzeng is professor of surgery, University of Pittsburgh, and chief, vascular surgery, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive Campus, PA. She is Vice-Chair, ACS Scientific Forum Committee.

Dr. Rusch is vice-chair, clinical research, department of surgery; Miner Family Chair in Intrathoracic Cancers; attending surgeon, thoracic service, department of surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; and professor of surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College. She is a consultant for the ACS Program Committee.

Ms. Burns is Senior Manager, Clinical Congress Program, ACS Division of Education, Chicago.

Mr. King is Assistant Director, Clinical Congress Program and Skills Courses, ACS Division of Education.

Dr. Sachdeva is Director, ACS Division of Education.






 

Publications
Topics
Sections

The Scientific Forum of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress has evolved since the concept was first introduced as the Surgical Forum in 1951. This year’s Scientific Forum will build on these transformations and will offer attendees greater exposure to the surgical research conducted by the ACS community.

Background

The Surgical Forum was established in 1951 to provide a supportive venue for trainees and junior faculty to present and discuss their research. Presenting at the Forum has always been a rite of passage for aspiring academic surgeon-scientists. In 1993, the Surgical Forum was renamed to honor the program founder, Owen H. Wangensteen, MD, PhD, FACS, past-chair, department of surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

As surgical science evolved, the Program Committee developed a separate Scientific Papers session for established investigators and Fellows who were not early in their career. As these two programs evolved, it became increasingly clear that there was substantial overlap. In 2014, the Surgical Forum and Scientific Papers merged into a single entity under the oversight of the existing Surgical Forum Committee.

The merged program was renamed the Scientific Forum to reflect the contributions of the Surgical Forum and the Scientific Papers, and the committee was renamed the Scientific Forum Committee. Because of the increase in scientific abstracts resulting from this merger, the committee expanded its membership to reflect the type of scientific abstracts in the broader program. The basic and translational research focus of the Surgical Forum was expanded to include clinical research in health services, education, global surgery, ethics, and other evolving areas of surgical science.

These changes have revitalized the scientific effort. The number and quality of the abstracts submitted to the Scientific Forum has grown significantly—more than 2,000 abstracts were submitted for review for Clinical Congress 2018.

The spirit of the Surgical Forum has been maintained in the new Scientific Forum, continuing with the clustering of focused areas of research to encourage discussion and collaboration among the attendees. The Program Committee continues to place great emphasis on highlighting the work of young investigators while incorporating the expertise of senior investigators into the sessions.
 

Changes at Clinical Congress 2017

Quick Shots and e-Posters were introduced at Clinical Congress 2017 in San Diego, CA. Quick Shots are three-minute oral abstract presentations, which were incorporated into the Scientific Forum sessions. This addition, which allowed for more presenters in a session, was met with a positive reception.

The poster sessions were restructured to an electronic format. The e-Posters were placed in a central, dedicated location among the Scientific Forum sessions rather than the Exhibit Hall. The modern e-Poster sessions brought greater visibility to the poster presentations and energized the format. In the e-Poster room, special sessions were scheduled to highlight the exceptional research efforts of the surgical trainees through the Excellence in Research Awards and the Posters of Exceptional Merit. In addition, the Scientific Forum is dedicated to a senior surgeon-scientist who has demonstrated a career-long commitment to training surgeon-scientists and the academic mission.

To further promote and support surgical research, the Scientific Forum Committee partnered with the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS) to solicit the highest-rated abstracts for publication in JACS. In the first year, the top 5 percent of abstracts in the clinical sciences were solicited for manuscript submissions. More than half of those authors submitted a manuscript for review. All accepted manuscripts will be electronically published concurrently with the ACS Clinical Congress 2018 to provide greater visibility to the high-quality research being generated by the ACS community.
 

 

 

Clinical trials session added in 2018

The Scientific Forum Committee strongly believes the Clinical Congress is the premier venue to present practice-changing research. New for 2018, a call for late-breaking clinical trials abstracts was issued, and the committee selected six clinical trials that have the potential to change practice and improve patient care. This new clinical trials session will be presented at Clinical Congress 2018 Monday, October 22, at 9:45 am.

The ACS Clinical Congress is the largest surgical meeting in the U.S. The vision of the Scientific Forum Committee is for leaders of surgical trials to view the Clinical Congress as the premier venue to present their results. These exciting and transformative changes to the Scientific Forum will bring greater exposure to the leading-edge research in clinical care, while continuing to support and encourage young surgeon-scientists—the future of the study and practice of surgery—in their work. ♦
 

Note

The authors of this article are part of the Owen H. Wangensteen Scientific Forum Committee—Mary T. Hawn, MD, FACS; Edith Tzeng, MD, FACS; and Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, are members, and M. Jane Burns, MJHL; Richard V. King, PhD; and Ajit K. Sachdeva, MD, FACS, FRCSC, are ACS staff.



Dr. Hawn is professor of surgery and chair, department of surgery, Stanford University, CA. She is Chair, ACS Scientific Forum Committee.

Dr. Tzeng is professor of surgery, University of Pittsburgh, and chief, vascular surgery, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive Campus, PA. She is Vice-Chair, ACS Scientific Forum Committee.

Dr. Rusch is vice-chair, clinical research, department of surgery; Miner Family Chair in Intrathoracic Cancers; attending surgeon, thoracic service, department of surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; and professor of surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College. She is a consultant for the ACS Program Committee.

Ms. Burns is Senior Manager, Clinical Congress Program, ACS Division of Education, Chicago.

Mr. King is Assistant Director, Clinical Congress Program and Skills Courses, ACS Division of Education.

Dr. Sachdeva is Director, ACS Division of Education.






 

The Scientific Forum of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Clinical Congress has evolved since the concept was first introduced as the Surgical Forum in 1951. This year’s Scientific Forum will build on these transformations and will offer attendees greater exposure to the surgical research conducted by the ACS community.

Background

The Surgical Forum was established in 1951 to provide a supportive venue for trainees and junior faculty to present and discuss their research. Presenting at the Forum has always been a rite of passage for aspiring academic surgeon-scientists. In 1993, the Surgical Forum was renamed to honor the program founder, Owen H. Wangensteen, MD, PhD, FACS, past-chair, department of surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

As surgical science evolved, the Program Committee developed a separate Scientific Papers session for established investigators and Fellows who were not early in their career. As these two programs evolved, it became increasingly clear that there was substantial overlap. In 2014, the Surgical Forum and Scientific Papers merged into a single entity under the oversight of the existing Surgical Forum Committee.

The merged program was renamed the Scientific Forum to reflect the contributions of the Surgical Forum and the Scientific Papers, and the committee was renamed the Scientific Forum Committee. Because of the increase in scientific abstracts resulting from this merger, the committee expanded its membership to reflect the type of scientific abstracts in the broader program. The basic and translational research focus of the Surgical Forum was expanded to include clinical research in health services, education, global surgery, ethics, and other evolving areas of surgical science.

These changes have revitalized the scientific effort. The number and quality of the abstracts submitted to the Scientific Forum has grown significantly—more than 2,000 abstracts were submitted for review for Clinical Congress 2018.

The spirit of the Surgical Forum has been maintained in the new Scientific Forum, continuing with the clustering of focused areas of research to encourage discussion and collaboration among the attendees. The Program Committee continues to place great emphasis on highlighting the work of young investigators while incorporating the expertise of senior investigators into the sessions.
 

Changes at Clinical Congress 2017

Quick Shots and e-Posters were introduced at Clinical Congress 2017 in San Diego, CA. Quick Shots are three-minute oral abstract presentations, which were incorporated into the Scientific Forum sessions. This addition, which allowed for more presenters in a session, was met with a positive reception.

The poster sessions were restructured to an electronic format. The e-Posters were placed in a central, dedicated location among the Scientific Forum sessions rather than the Exhibit Hall. The modern e-Poster sessions brought greater visibility to the poster presentations and energized the format. In the e-Poster room, special sessions were scheduled to highlight the exceptional research efforts of the surgical trainees through the Excellence in Research Awards and the Posters of Exceptional Merit. In addition, the Scientific Forum is dedicated to a senior surgeon-scientist who has demonstrated a career-long commitment to training surgeon-scientists and the academic mission.

To further promote and support surgical research, the Scientific Forum Committee partnered with the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS) to solicit the highest-rated abstracts for publication in JACS. In the first year, the top 5 percent of abstracts in the clinical sciences were solicited for manuscript submissions. More than half of those authors submitted a manuscript for review. All accepted manuscripts will be electronically published concurrently with the ACS Clinical Congress 2018 to provide greater visibility to the high-quality research being generated by the ACS community.
 

 

 

Clinical trials session added in 2018

The Scientific Forum Committee strongly believes the Clinical Congress is the premier venue to present practice-changing research. New for 2018, a call for late-breaking clinical trials abstracts was issued, and the committee selected six clinical trials that have the potential to change practice and improve patient care. This new clinical trials session will be presented at Clinical Congress 2018 Monday, October 22, at 9:45 am.

The ACS Clinical Congress is the largest surgical meeting in the U.S. The vision of the Scientific Forum Committee is for leaders of surgical trials to view the Clinical Congress as the premier venue to present their results. These exciting and transformative changes to the Scientific Forum will bring greater exposure to the leading-edge research in clinical care, while continuing to support and encourage young surgeon-scientists—the future of the study and practice of surgery—in their work. ♦
 

Note

The authors of this article are part of the Owen H. Wangensteen Scientific Forum Committee—Mary T. Hawn, MD, FACS; Edith Tzeng, MD, FACS; and Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, are members, and M. Jane Burns, MJHL; Richard V. King, PhD; and Ajit K. Sachdeva, MD, FACS, FRCSC, are ACS staff.



Dr. Hawn is professor of surgery and chair, department of surgery, Stanford University, CA. She is Chair, ACS Scientific Forum Committee.

Dr. Tzeng is professor of surgery, University of Pittsburgh, and chief, vascular surgery, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive Campus, PA. She is Vice-Chair, ACS Scientific Forum Committee.

Dr. Rusch is vice-chair, clinical research, department of surgery; Miner Family Chair in Intrathoracic Cancers; attending surgeon, thoracic service, department of surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; and professor of surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College. She is a consultant for the ACS Program Committee.

Ms. Burns is Senior Manager, Clinical Congress Program, ACS Division of Education, Chicago.

Mr. King is Assistant Director, Clinical Congress Program and Skills Courses, ACS Division of Education.

Dr. Sachdeva is Director, ACS Division of Education.






 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Obesity paradox extends to PE patients

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/18/2019 - 09:30

 

Patients with pulmonary embolism who were obese paradoxically had a lower mortality risk, compared with those who are not obese, according to results of a retrospective analysis covering 13 years and nearly 2 million PE discharges.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News
Dr. Zubair Khan

The obese patients in the analysis had a lower mortality risk, despite receiving more thrombolytics and mechanical intubation, said investigator Zubair Khan, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Toledo (Ohio) Medical Center.

“Surprisingly, the mortality of PE was significantly less in obese patients,” Dr. Khan said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “When we initiated the study, we did not expect this result.”

The association between obesity and lower mortality, sometimes called the “obesity paradox,” has been observed in studies of other chronic health conditions including stable heart failure, coronary artery disease, unstable angina, MI, and also in some PE studies, Dr. Khan said.

The study by Dr. Khan and his colleagues, based on the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, included adults with a primary discharge diagnosis of PE between 2002 and 2014. They included 1,959,018 PE discharges, of which 312,770 (16%) had an underlying obesity diagnosis.

Obese PE patients had more risk factors and more severe disease but had an overall mortality of 2.2%, compared with 3.7% in PE patients without obesity (P less than .001), Dr. Khan reported.

Hypertension was significantly more prevalent in the obese PE patients (65% vs. 50.5%; P less than .001), as was chronic lung disease and chronic liver disease, he noted in his presentation.

Obese patients more often received thrombolytics (3.6% vs. 1.9%; P less than .001) and mechanical ventilation (5.8% vs. 4%; P less than .001), and more frequently had cardiogenic shock (0.65% vs. 0.45%; P less than .001), he said.

The obese PE patients were more often female, black, and younger than 65 years of age, it was reported.

Notably, the prevalence of obesity in PE patients more than doubled over the course of the study period, from 10.2% in 2002 to 22.6% in 2014, Dr. Khan added.

The paradoxically lower mortality in obese patients might be explained by increased levels of endocannabinoids, which have shown protective effects in rat and mouse studies, Dr. Khan told attendees at the meeting.

“I think it’s a rich area for more and further research, especially in basic science,” Dr. Khan said.

Dr. Khan and his coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Khan Z et al. CHEST. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.919.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Patients with pulmonary embolism who were obese paradoxically had a lower mortality risk, compared with those who are not obese, according to results of a retrospective analysis covering 13 years and nearly 2 million PE discharges.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News
Dr. Zubair Khan

The obese patients in the analysis had a lower mortality risk, despite receiving more thrombolytics and mechanical intubation, said investigator Zubair Khan, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Toledo (Ohio) Medical Center.

“Surprisingly, the mortality of PE was significantly less in obese patients,” Dr. Khan said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “When we initiated the study, we did not expect this result.”

The association between obesity and lower mortality, sometimes called the “obesity paradox,” has been observed in studies of other chronic health conditions including stable heart failure, coronary artery disease, unstable angina, MI, and also in some PE studies, Dr. Khan said.

The study by Dr. Khan and his colleagues, based on the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, included adults with a primary discharge diagnosis of PE between 2002 and 2014. They included 1,959,018 PE discharges, of which 312,770 (16%) had an underlying obesity diagnosis.

Obese PE patients had more risk factors and more severe disease but had an overall mortality of 2.2%, compared with 3.7% in PE patients without obesity (P less than .001), Dr. Khan reported.

Hypertension was significantly more prevalent in the obese PE patients (65% vs. 50.5%; P less than .001), as was chronic lung disease and chronic liver disease, he noted in his presentation.

Obese patients more often received thrombolytics (3.6% vs. 1.9%; P less than .001) and mechanical ventilation (5.8% vs. 4%; P less than .001), and more frequently had cardiogenic shock (0.65% vs. 0.45%; P less than .001), he said.

The obese PE patients were more often female, black, and younger than 65 years of age, it was reported.

Notably, the prevalence of obesity in PE patients more than doubled over the course of the study period, from 10.2% in 2002 to 22.6% in 2014, Dr. Khan added.

The paradoxically lower mortality in obese patients might be explained by increased levels of endocannabinoids, which have shown protective effects in rat and mouse studies, Dr. Khan told attendees at the meeting.

“I think it’s a rich area for more and further research, especially in basic science,” Dr. Khan said.

Dr. Khan and his coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Khan Z et al. CHEST. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.919.

 

Patients with pulmonary embolism who were obese paradoxically had a lower mortality risk, compared with those who are not obese, according to results of a retrospective analysis covering 13 years and nearly 2 million PE discharges.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News
Dr. Zubair Khan

The obese patients in the analysis had a lower mortality risk, despite receiving more thrombolytics and mechanical intubation, said investigator Zubair Khan, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Toledo (Ohio) Medical Center.

“Surprisingly, the mortality of PE was significantly less in obese patients,” Dr. Khan said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “When we initiated the study, we did not expect this result.”

The association between obesity and lower mortality, sometimes called the “obesity paradox,” has been observed in studies of other chronic health conditions including stable heart failure, coronary artery disease, unstable angina, MI, and also in some PE studies, Dr. Khan said.

The study by Dr. Khan and his colleagues, based on the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, included adults with a primary discharge diagnosis of PE between 2002 and 2014. They included 1,959,018 PE discharges, of which 312,770 (16%) had an underlying obesity diagnosis.

Obese PE patients had more risk factors and more severe disease but had an overall mortality of 2.2%, compared with 3.7% in PE patients without obesity (P less than .001), Dr. Khan reported.

Hypertension was significantly more prevalent in the obese PE patients (65% vs. 50.5%; P less than .001), as was chronic lung disease and chronic liver disease, he noted in his presentation.

Obese patients more often received thrombolytics (3.6% vs. 1.9%; P less than .001) and mechanical ventilation (5.8% vs. 4%; P less than .001), and more frequently had cardiogenic shock (0.65% vs. 0.45%; P less than .001), he said.

The obese PE patients were more often female, black, and younger than 65 years of age, it was reported.

Notably, the prevalence of obesity in PE patients more than doubled over the course of the study period, from 10.2% in 2002 to 22.6% in 2014, Dr. Khan added.

The paradoxically lower mortality in obese patients might be explained by increased levels of endocannabinoids, which have shown protective effects in rat and mouse studies, Dr. Khan told attendees at the meeting.

“I think it’s a rich area for more and further research, especially in basic science,” Dr. Khan said.

Dr. Khan and his coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to the study.
 

SOURCE: Khan Z et al. CHEST. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.919.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM CHEST 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: The obesity paradox observed in other chronic conditions held true in this study of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).

Major finding: Obese PE patients had more risk factors and more severe disease, but an overall mortality of 2.2% vs 3.7% in nonobese PE patients.

Study details: Retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database including almost 2 million individuals with a primary discharge diagnosis of PE.

Disclosures: Study authors had no disclosures.

Source: Khan Z et al. CHEST. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.919.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Planning for ventilator-dependent patients during natural disasters

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 13:20
Vidyard Video

– For patients with neuromuscular disorders, the stress and danger from natural disasters such Hurricane Harvey are best avoided by leaving the area as soon as possible, according to Venessa A. Holland, MD, FCCP, of Houston Methodist Hospital.

While none of Dr. Holland’s patients died during this catastrophic hurricane, there were considerable challenges, particularly for those trapped by the many trillion gallons of water fell on Texas and Louisiana in August 2017. Houston was flooded, and hospitals and other medical facilities were hit hard. The vulnerability of ventilator-dependent and incapacitated patients was of particular concern.

In one case, a ventilator-dependent patient trapped by flood waters at home became diaphoretic and hypotensive. The patient was treated with electrolyte-replacement sports drink administered via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, Dr. Holland told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. Holland spoke in a video interview about how neuromuscular disorder patients fared during Hurricane Harvey and her recommendations for the next natural disaster.

Dr. Holland disclosed that she previously served as a consultant to Hill-Rom.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Vidyard Video

– For patients with neuromuscular disorders, the stress and danger from natural disasters such Hurricane Harvey are best avoided by leaving the area as soon as possible, according to Venessa A. Holland, MD, FCCP, of Houston Methodist Hospital.

While none of Dr. Holland’s patients died during this catastrophic hurricane, there were considerable challenges, particularly for those trapped by the many trillion gallons of water fell on Texas and Louisiana in August 2017. Houston was flooded, and hospitals and other medical facilities were hit hard. The vulnerability of ventilator-dependent and incapacitated patients was of particular concern.

In one case, a ventilator-dependent patient trapped by flood waters at home became diaphoretic and hypotensive. The patient was treated with electrolyte-replacement sports drink administered via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, Dr. Holland told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. Holland spoke in a video interview about how neuromuscular disorder patients fared during Hurricane Harvey and her recommendations for the next natural disaster.

Dr. Holland disclosed that she previously served as a consultant to Hill-Rom.

Vidyard Video

– For patients with neuromuscular disorders, the stress and danger from natural disasters such Hurricane Harvey are best avoided by leaving the area as soon as possible, according to Venessa A. Holland, MD, FCCP, of Houston Methodist Hospital.

While none of Dr. Holland’s patients died during this catastrophic hurricane, there were considerable challenges, particularly for those trapped by the many trillion gallons of water fell on Texas and Louisiana in August 2017. Houston was flooded, and hospitals and other medical facilities were hit hard. The vulnerability of ventilator-dependent and incapacitated patients was of particular concern.

In one case, a ventilator-dependent patient trapped by flood waters at home became diaphoretic and hypotensive. The patient was treated with electrolyte-replacement sports drink administered via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube, Dr. Holland told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. Holland spoke in a video interview about how neuromuscular disorder patients fared during Hurricane Harvey and her recommendations for the next natural disaster.

Dr. Holland disclosed that she previously served as a consultant to Hill-Rom.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM CHEST 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Latest clinical trials advance COPD management

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 18:01
Vidyard Video

– Recent studies have shown that the use of a long-acting beta2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) combination is superior to LAMA alone in endpoints including exacerbation, Nicola A. Hanania, MD, FCCP, said in a panel discussion session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Other recent evidence has shown that the use of LABA/LAMA has cardiovascular benefits in hyperinflated patients with COPD, according to Dr. Hanania, director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Meanwhile, emerging data in patients with advanced COPD have demonstrated the benefits of single-inhaler triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA/LAMA versus LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA combinations, Dr. Hanania said in an interview.

The past year also has brought news that ICS de-escalation is possible in patients with moderate COPD with no exacerbation risk, though it may not be possible in patients with high baseline blood eosinophils, he added.

Recent developments have not all been about drug therapy. The Zephyr endobronchial valve improved outcomes in patients with little to no collateral ventilation in target lobes, Dr. Hanania said. However, the therapy comes with a potential risk of pneumothorax, so patients need to be monitored in the hospital.

Dr. Hanania provided disclosures related to Roche (Genentech), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as institutional research grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Lung Association.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Vidyard Video

– Recent studies have shown that the use of a long-acting beta2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) combination is superior to LAMA alone in endpoints including exacerbation, Nicola A. Hanania, MD, FCCP, said in a panel discussion session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Other recent evidence has shown that the use of LABA/LAMA has cardiovascular benefits in hyperinflated patients with COPD, according to Dr. Hanania, director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Meanwhile, emerging data in patients with advanced COPD have demonstrated the benefits of single-inhaler triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA/LAMA versus LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA combinations, Dr. Hanania said in an interview.

The past year also has brought news that ICS de-escalation is possible in patients with moderate COPD with no exacerbation risk, though it may not be possible in patients with high baseline blood eosinophils, he added.

Recent developments have not all been about drug therapy. The Zephyr endobronchial valve improved outcomes in patients with little to no collateral ventilation in target lobes, Dr. Hanania said. However, the therapy comes with a potential risk of pneumothorax, so patients need to be monitored in the hospital.

Dr. Hanania provided disclosures related to Roche (Genentech), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as institutional research grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Lung Association.

Vidyard Video

– Recent studies have shown that the use of a long-acting beta2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) combination is superior to LAMA alone in endpoints including exacerbation, Nicola A. Hanania, MD, FCCP, said in a panel discussion session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Other recent evidence has shown that the use of LABA/LAMA has cardiovascular benefits in hyperinflated patients with COPD, according to Dr. Hanania, director of the Airways Clinical Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Meanwhile, emerging data in patients with advanced COPD have demonstrated the benefits of single-inhaler triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA/LAMA versus LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA combinations, Dr. Hanania said in an interview.

The past year also has brought news that ICS de-escalation is possible in patients with moderate COPD with no exacerbation risk, though it may not be possible in patients with high baseline blood eosinophils, he added.

Recent developments have not all been about drug therapy. The Zephyr endobronchial valve improved outcomes in patients with little to no collateral ventilation in target lobes, Dr. Hanania said. However, the therapy comes with a potential risk of pneumothorax, so patients need to be monitored in the hospital.

Dr. Hanania provided disclosures related to Roche (Genentech), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as institutional research grant support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Lung Association.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM CHEST 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

COPD and Asthma Supplement

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 07/09/2020 - 15:50
Display Headline
COPD and Asthma Update

COPD and Asthma Update

Vidyard Video

"COPD and Asthma Update" is a clinical aid for PCPs to further understand and manage patients with COPD or asthma. Click here to read the supplement, then click the buttons below for supplementary materials to each chapter.

Supplementary Materials:

            
Audio file
Vidyard Video

 

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2018 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Sponsor
This supplement is supported by funding from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutica…
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(10)
Publications
Sections
Sponsor
This supplement is supported by funding from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutica…
Sponsor
This supplement is supported by funding from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutica…

COPD and Asthma Update

Vidyard Video

"COPD and Asthma Update" is a clinical aid for PCPs to further understand and manage patients with COPD or asthma. Click here to read the supplement, then click the buttons below for supplementary materials to each chapter.

Supplementary Materials:

            
Audio file
Vidyard Video

 

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2018 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

COPD and Asthma Update

Vidyard Video

"COPD and Asthma Update" is a clinical aid for PCPs to further understand and manage patients with COPD or asthma. Click here to read the supplement, then click the buttons below for supplementary materials to each chapter.

Supplementary Materials:

            
Audio file
Vidyard Video

 

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2018 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(10)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 67(10)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
COPD and Asthma Update
Display Headline
COPD and Asthma Update
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Fri, 09/21/2018 - 12:45
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 09/21/2018 - 12:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 09/21/2018 - 12:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article

Upper Extremity Injuries in Soccer

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:16

ABSTRACT

Upper limb injuries in soccer represent only a marginal portion of injuries, however this is mainly true for outfield players. Goalkeepers are reported to have up to 5 times more upper extremity injuries, many of them requiring substantial time-loss for treatment and rehabilitation. The most common upper extremity injury locations are the shoulder/clavicle followed by the hand/finger/thumb, elbow, wrist, forearm, and upper arm. The mechanism of injury, presentation, physical examination, and imaging features all play a significant role in reaching the correct diagnosis. Taking to consideration the position the player plays and his demands will also enable tailoring the optimal treatment plan that allows timely and safe return to play. This article discusses common upper extremity injuries observed in soccer players, focusing on proper diagnosis and optimal management.

Continue to: Upper limb injuries in association with soccer...

 

 

Upper limb injuries in association with soccer have been reported to represent only 3% of all time-loss injuries in professional soccer players1. However, they are considered an increasing problem in recent years2-4 and have been reported in high proportions in children under the age of 15 years.5 Some of the reasons for the increase in upper extremity injuries may be explained by modern soccer tactics that have been characterized by high speed, pressing, and marking.2 Furthermore, upper extremity injuries may still be underestimated in soccer, mainly because outfield players are sometimes able to train and play even when they suffer from an upper extremity injury.

Unsurprisingly, upper extremity injuries are reported to be up to 5 times more common in goalkeepers than in outfield players,1,2 reaching a high rate of up to 18% of all injuries among professional goalkeepers. The usage of upper extremities to stop the ball and repeated reaching to the ball and landing on the ground with changing upper extremity positions are some of the contributors to the increased upper extremity injury risk in goalkeepers.

Following 57 male professional European soccer teams from 16 countries between the years 2001 and 2011, Ekstrand and colleagues1 showed that 90% of upper extremity injuries are traumatic, and only 10% are related to overuse. They also reported that the most common upper extremity injury location is the shoulder/clavicle (56%), followed by the hand/finger/thumb (24%), elbow (10%), wrist (5%), forearm (4%), and upper arm (1%). Specifically, the 6 most common injuries are acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) sprain (13%), shoulder dislocation (12%), hand metacarpal fracture (8%), shoulder rotator cuff tendinopathy (6%), hand phalanx fracture (6%), and shoulder ACJ dislocation (5%). 

This article will discuss common upper extremity injuries observed in soccer players, focusing on proper diagnosis and optimal management.

Continue to: THE SHOULDER...

 

 

THE SHOULDER

The majority of upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players are shoulder injuries.1,2,4 Almost a third of these injuries (28%) are considered severe, preventing participation in training and matches for 28 days or more.6Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that shoulder dislocation represents the most severe upper extremity injury with a mean of 41 days of absence from soccer. When considering the position of the player, they further demonstrated that absence from full training and matches is twice as long for goalkeepers as for outfield players, which reflects the importance of shoulder function for goalkeepers.

In terms of the mechanism of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players, more than half (56%) of these injuries occur with a high-energy mechanism in the recognized position of combined humeral abduction and external rotation against a force of external rotation and horizontal extension.3 However, almost a quarter (24%) occur with a mechanism of varied upper extremity position and low-energy trauma, and 20% of injuries are either a low energy injury with little or no contact or gradual onset. These unique characteristics of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players should be accounted for during training and may imply that current training programs are suboptimal for the prevention of upper extremity injuries and shoulder injuries. Ejnisman and colleagues2 reported on the development of a Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 11+ shoulder injury prevention program for soccer goalkeepers as one of the ways to promote training programs that address the risk of shoulder injuries.

Reporting on the management of severe shoulder injuries requiring surgery in 25 professional soccer players in England, between 2007 and 2011, Hart and Funk3 found that the majority of subjects (88%) reported a dislocation as a feature of their presentation. Twenty-one (84%) subjects were diagnosed with labral injuries, of which 7 had an associated Hill-Sachs lesion. Two (8%) subjects were diagnosed with rotator cuff tears requiring repair, and 2 (8%) subjects had a combination of rotator cuff and labral injury repair. All patients underwent arthroscopic repair, except for 5 who had a Latarjet coracoid transfer. Post-surgery, all players were able to return to unrestricted participation in soccer at a mean of 11.4 weeks, with no significant difference between goalkeepers and outfield players and no recurrences at a mean of 91 weeks’ follow-up. 

Up to one-third of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players are reported to be recurrences,1,3 which emphasizes the need to carefully assess soccer players before clearing them to return to play. These data raise the controversy over the treatment of first time shoulder dislocators and may support early surgical intervention.7-9 In terms of the preferred surgical intervention in these cases, Balg and Boileau10 suggested a simple scoring system based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and anteroposterior radiographs to help distinguish between patients who will benefit from an arthroscopic anterior stabilization using suture anchors and those who will require a bony procedure (open or arthroscopic). Cerciello and colleagues11 reported excellent results for bony stabilization (modified Latarjet) in a population of 26 soccer players (28 shoulders) affected by chronic anterior instability. Only 1 player did not return to soccer, and 18 players (20 shoulders, 71%) returned to the same level. One re-dislocation was noted in a goalkeeper 74 months after surgery.

An injury to the ACJ has been previously reported to be the most prevalent type of shoulder injury in contact sports.12In soccer, injury to the ACJ is responsible for 18% of upper extremity injuries, and the majority (72%) are sprains.1Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, implications of such an injury differ significantly between goalkeepers and outfield players with up to 3 times longer required absence periods for goalkeepers vs outfield players sustaining the same injury.

ACJ injury is commonly the result of a direct fall on the shoulder with the arm adducted or extended. Six grades of ACJ injuries have been described and distinguished by the injured anatomical structure (acromioclavicular ligaments and coracoclavicular ligaments) and the direction and magnitude of clavicular dislocation.13,14 Presentation will usually include anterior shoulder pain, a noticeable swelling or change in morphology of the lateral end of the clavicle (mainly in dislocation types), and sharp pain provoked by palpation of the ACJ. Radiographic imaging will confirm the diagnosis and help with identifying the specific grade/type of injury.

Decision making and management of acute ACJ injury should be based on the type/grade of injury. Nonoperative treatment is recommended for types I and II, and most athletes have a successful outcome with a full return to play.12Types IV, V, and VI are treated early with operative intervention, mostly due to the morbidity associated with prolonged dislocation of the joint and subsequent soft tissue damage.12 Treatment of type III injury remains controversial. Pereira-Graterol and colleagues15 reported the effectiveness of clavicular hook plate (DePuy Synthes) in the surgical stabilization of grade III ACJ dislocation in 11 professional soccer players. At a mean follow-up of 4 years, they showed excellent functional results with full shoulder range of motion at 5 weeks and latest return to soccer at 6 months. The hook plate was removed after 16 weeks in 10 patients in whom no apparent complication was observed.

Continue to: THE ELBOW...

 

 

THE ELBOW

Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that 10% of all upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players are elbow injuries, of which only 19% are considered severe injuries that require more than 28 days of absence from playing soccer. The most common elbow injuries in their cohort were elbow medial collateral ligament (MCL) sprain and olecranon bursitis.

Elbow MCL is the primary constraint of the elbow joint to valgus stress, and MCL sprain occurs when the elbow is subjected to a valgus, or laterally directed force, which distracts the medial side of the elbow, exceeding the tensile properties of the MCL.16 A thorough physical examination that includes valgus stress tests through the arc of elbow flexion and extension to elicit a possible subjective feeling of apprehension, instability, or localized pain is essential for optimal evaluation and treatment.16,17 Imaging studies (X-ray and stress X-rays, dynamic ultrasound, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and MR arthrography) have a role in further establishing the diagnosis and identifying possible additional associated injuries.16 The treatment plan should be specifically tailored to the individual athlete, depending on his demands and the degree of MCL injury. In soccer, which is a non-throwing shoulder sport, nonoperative treatment should be the preferred initial treatment in most cases. Ekstrand and colleagues1 showed that this injury requires a mean of 4 days of absence from soccer for outfield players and a mean of 21 days of absence from soccer for goalkeepers, thereby indicating more severe sprains and cautious return to soccer in goalkeepers. Athletes who fail nonoperative treatment are candidates for MCL reconstruction.16

The olecranon bursa is a synovium-lined sac that facilitates gliding between the olecranon and overlying skin. Olecranon bursitis is characterized by accumulation of fluid in the bursa with or without inflammation. The fluid can be serous, sanguineous, or purulent depending on the etiology.18 In soccer, traumatic etiology is common, but infection secondary to cuts or scratches of the skin around the elbow or previous therapeutic injections around the elbow should always be ruled out. Local pain, swelling, warmth, and redness are usually the presenting symptoms. Aseptic olecranon bursitis may be managed non-surgically with ‘‘benign neglect’’ and avoidance of pressure to the area, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, needle aspiration, corticosteroid injection, compression dressings, and/or padded splinting; whereas acute septic bursitis requires needle aspiration for diagnosis, appropriate oral or intravenous antibiotics directed toward the offending organism, and, when clinically indicated, surgical evacuation/excision of the bursa.18 When treating this condition with cortisone injection, possible complications, such as skin atrophy, secondary infection, and chronic local pain, have been reported and should be considered.19

Severe elbow injuries in professional athletes in general,20-22 and soccer players specifically, are elbow subluxations/dislocations and elbow fracture. The mechanism of injury is usually contact injury with an opponent player or a fall on the palm with the arm extended. Posterolateral is the most common type of elbow dislocation. Elbow dislocations are further classified into simple (no associated fractures) and complex (associated with fractures) categories.22 Simple dislocations are usually treated with early mobilization after closed reduction; it is associated with a low risk for re-dislocation and with generally good results. The complex type of elbow fracture dislocation is more difficult to treat, has higher complication and re-dislocation rates, and requires operative treatment in most cases compared with simple dislocation.22 The “terrible triad” of the elbow (posterior elbow dislocation, radial head fracture, and coronoid fracture) represents a specific complex elbow dislocation scenario that is difficult to manage because of conflicting aims of ensuring elbow stability while maintaining early range of motion.22

Isolated fracture around the elbow should be treated based on known principles of fracture management: mechanism of injury, fracture patterns, fracture displacement, intra-articular involvement, soft tissue condition, and associated injuries.

Continue to: THE WRIST...

 

 

THE WRIST

Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that 5% of all upper extremity injuries in their cohort of professional soccer players are wrist injuries, of which, only 2% are considered severe injuries that require >28 days of absence from playing soccer. The more common wrist injuries in soccer, which is considered a high-impact sport, are fractures (distal radius, scaphoid, capitate), and less reported injuries are dislocations (lunate, perilunate) and ligamentous injuries or tears (scapholunate ligament).23

Distal radius fractures in high-impact sports, like soccer, usually occur as a result of a fall on an out-stretched hand and will usually be more comminuted, displaced, and intra-articular compared with low-impact sports.23 All these aforementioned characteristics usually indicate surgical management of open reduction and internal fixation, which will allow for rapid start of rehabilitation and return to play.

Scaphoid fracture is the most common carpal bone fracture and presents unique challenges in terms of diagnosis and optimal treatment24 in professional athletes. A typical injury scenario would be a player falling on an outstretched hand and sustaining a scaphoid fracture during a match or training session. The player may acknowledge some wrist pain but will often continue to play with minimal or no limitation. As wrist pain and swelling become more evident after the match/training session, the player will seek medical evaluation.24 A complete wrist and upper extremity examination should be performed in addition to a specific assessment, which includes palpation of the distal scaphoid pole at the distal wrist flexion crease, palpation of the scaphoid waist through the wrist snuff box, and palpation dorsally just distal to the Lister tubercle at the scapholunate joint. Any wrist injury that results in decreased range of motion, snuff box swelling, and scaphoid tenderness should be further evaluated with imaging. Plain radiographs with special scaphoid views are the initial preferred imaging studies, but occult fracture will require an additional study such as a bone scan, CT, or MRI. Several studies have validated the benefit of MRI and the fact that it may outweigh the costs associated with lost productivity from unnecessary cast immobilization, especially in elite athletes.23-25Casting the patient with a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture has been the traditional treatment; however, stiffness, weakness, and deconditioning that can occur with long-term casting required for scaphoid fractures are significant impairments for the professional athlete and usually end the player’s season. Surgical treatment, which was traditionally indicated for displaced or proximal pole fractures, is currently also considered for non-displaced scaphoid waist fractures in professional athletes. This treatment allows for a rapid return to the rehabilitation of the extremity and possible early return to professional sport. In view of the known complications (eg, malunion, nonunion, and avascular necrosis), return to soccer can be considered when imaging confirms advanced healing, which some consider as at least 50% of bone fracture bridging on CT scan, no pain, excellent motion, and at least 80% of normal grip strength.24 Outfield players can return to play with a protective cast or brace until full healing is observed on imaging.

Continue to: THE HAND/FINGERS/THUMB...

 

 

THE HAND/FINGERS/THUMB

Almost a quarter of upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players were reported to involve the hand, fingers, and thumb. A quarter of them were classified as severe injuries requiring >28 days of absence from playing soccer.1Specifically, hand metacarpal and phalanx fractures are the most common reported injuries in sports in general,26 and in soccer,1 and account for 14% of all upper extremity injuries1 in professional soccer players. Goalkeepers require a functional hand to play, whereas an outfielder can play with protection on the injured area; thus, the period of absence from soccer in these injuries is significantly different between goalkeepers and outfielders with more than 4 times longer absence from soccer for a goalkeeper compared with an outfielder. The fifth ray has been shown to be the most frequently fractured ray in the hand in soccer with 51.7% of all hand fractures reported.26 The common mechanism is a full hit on the hand, and a direct hit from the ball is another possible mechanism in goalkeepers.

In general, the diagnosis of hand injuries requires evaluation of the mechanism of injury and injury symptoms, proper and comprehensive physical examination of the whole extremity, and prompt imaging. In most cases, plain radiographs in several projections will suffice for the diagnosis of obvious fractures, but CT scan is an additional modality that allows for improved appreciation of occult or complex and comminuted fracture patterns. MRI or ultrasound can be used additionally whenever associated soft tissue injury is suspected. Optimal management of the hand is based on the specific characteristics of the fractures, which include location, direction of the fracture line, presence of comminution, displacement, articular involvement, and associated soft tissue injury. Nondisplaced extra-articular fractures often can be treated with buddy taping or splinting, whereas intra-articular fractures often require surgical treatment. Displaced fractures of the hand have a tendency to angulate volarly because of attachments of the interosseous muscles. Marginal fractures or avulsion fractures involving the metacarpals or phalanges can be sentinels of serious associated soft tissue injuries.27

Phalangeal fractures can potentially affect the function of the entire hand; therefore, no malrotation is acceptable for phalangeal fractures because they can lead to overlap and malalignment of the digit. Displaced or malrotated fractures should be reduced either by closed or open techniques. Acceptable reduction is <6 mm of shortening, <15° of angulation, and no rotational deformity.27,28 Nondisplaced phalangeal fractures can be treated nonoperatively with buddy taping and splinting with good results.27 Interphalangeal (IP) dislocations can be reduced on the sidelines and then taped or splinted. Any injury with a force significant enough to cause joint dislocation indicates further evaluation for associated fractures and ligamentous injury or tear. The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint is the most common IP joint dislocation and is usually a dorsal dislocation. Reduction is often achieved by traction and flexion of the middle phalanx,27 followed by splinting of the finger with the PIP in 30° of flexion or an extension block splint.29 Successful reduction with no associated intra-articular fractures involving more than a third of the joint can be further managed nonoperatively with the splint, allowing 2 to 4 weeks for the volar plate, joint capsule, and collateral ligaments to heal. Additional 2 to 4 weeks of splinting with buddy taping to the adjacent finger is usually recommended.29

The “Mallet finger” injury can be observed in goalkeepers and is caused by a flexion force on the tip of the finger while the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint is extended. This force results in tearing of the extensor tendon or an avulsion fracture at the tendinous attachment on the dorsal lip of the distal phalangeal base. The classic mechanism of injury is an extended finger struck on the tip by a ball. Physical examination will indicate loss of DIP joint active extension, and the joint rests in an abnormally flexed position. Treatment typically consists of splinting the DIP joint in extension for 6 to 8 weeks. Operative treatment is reserved for severe injuries or fractures involving greater than one-third of the articular surface of the DIP joint or with failed nonoperative treatment.27 

Metacarpal fractures can be subdivided into distal, metacarpal neck, metacarpal shaft, and metacarpal base fractures. Metacarpal shaft fractures raise a specific concern regarding rotation, because even a small degree of rotation can create a substantial degree of deformity at the fingertip. This concern must be addressed during evaluation of the player. Fractures of the metacarpal base most commonly involve the fourth and fifth metacarpals and are often reduced easily but have a tendency to re-subluxate, which may indicate operative treatment. Most fractures of the metacarpals are low energy and result in simple fracture patterns that can be treated nonoperatively. Open reduction is reserved for high-energy trauma, fractures with excessive angulation, or multiple fractures.27

Continue to: An important subgroup of metacarpal injuries...

 

 

An important subgroup of metacarpal injuries involves the base of the thumb. These injuries result from an axial load applied to the thumb. The most common injury is the “Bennett fracture,” which is an intra-articular fracture or dislocation involving the base of the first metacarpal. Bennett fractures are unstable fractures; unless properly recognized and treated, this intra-articular fracture subluxation may result in an unstable arthritic first carpometacarpal joint. These fractures are most commonly treated with closed or open reduction combined with internal fixation.27 “Rolando fractures” are similar in location and etiology but are comminuted and usually require operative treatment.27, 29

Another common hand injury found in soccer goalkeepers and involving the base of the thumb is disruption of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) of the first metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint as a result of an acute radial or valgus stress on the thumb. Known as “gamekeeper’s thumb” or “skier’s thumb,” this injury can occur in the form of an avulsion fracture, an isolated ligament tear, or combined fracture and ligament rupture. On examination, swelling and tenderness over the thumb UCL are observed. A MCP joint stress test should be performed by gently applying a radially directed force to the thumb while stabilizing the metacarpal bone at both 0° and 30° at the MCP joint. Increased laxity, a soft or nonexistent end point, and gaping of the joint, as compared with the contralateral side, will indicate this injury.29 Radiographs may show a small avulsion fracture fragment at the ulnar aspect of the base of the first metacarpal and at the attachment of the UCL. A Stener lesion is an abnormality that occurs when the thumb adductor muscle aponeurosis interposes between the 2 ends of the ruptured UCL, preventing UCL healing by immobilization alone. Ultrasound and MRI are additional imaging modalities that can assist with the diagnosis of a Stener lesion. The presence of a Stener lesion is a prime indication for surgical intervention. A nondisplaced fracture or isolated ligament injury with no evidence of a Stener lesion can be treated nonoperatively with splinting of the thumb and may lead to healing and restoration of stability. However, in professional players, surgical repair is often times preferred.27

CONCLUSION

Upper extremity injuries are less common injuries among soccer players, but their prevalence is on the rise in recent years. Modern playing tactics and the increase in participation in soccer in younger age groups may be 2 contributing factors to this rise. Given the characteristics of their unique playing role and specific demands, the risk for upper extremity injuries among goalkeepers is significantly higher than that in outfielders and will usually result in a long absence period from soccer before they return to play. A thorough understanding of the mechanism of injury, players’ complaints and presentation, osseous and soft tissue involvement based on a systematic physical examination, imaging features, and treatment options is important for the optimal care of the players. Prompt and accurate diagnosis and appropriate management are essential for improved outcomes and timely return to play.

References

1. Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Tornqvist H, et al. Upper extremity injuries in male elite football players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1626-1632. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2164-6.

2. Ejnisman B, Barbosa G, Andreoli CV, et al. Shoulder injuries in soccer goalkeepers: Review and development of a FIFA 11+ shoulder injury prevention program. Open Access J Sports Med. 2016;7:75-80. doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S97917.

3. Hart D, Funk L. Serious shoulder injuries in professional soccer: Return to participation after surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2123-2129. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2796-1.

4. Longo UG, Loppini M, Berton A, Martinelli N, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Shoulder injuries in soccer players. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2012;9(3):138-141.

5. Faude O, Rossler R, Junge A. Football injuries in children and adolescent players: Are there clues for prevention? Sports Med. 2013;43(9):819-837. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0061-x.

6. Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Injury incidence and injury patterns in professional football: The UEFA injury study. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(7):553-558. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.060582.

7. Boone JL, Arciero RA. First-time anterior shoulder dislocations: Has the standard changed? Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(5):355-360. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.062596.

8. Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD004325.

9. Kirkley A, Werstine R, Ratjek A, Griffin S. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder: Long-term evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(1):55-63.

10. Balg F, Boileau P. The instability severity index score. A simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(11):1470-1477.

11. Cerciello S, Edwards TB, Walch G. Chronic anterior glenohumeral instability in soccer players: Results for a series of 28 shoulders treated with the latarjet procedure. J Orthop Traumatol. 2012;13(4):197-202. doi:10.1007/s10195-012-0201-3.

12. Bishop JY, Kaeding C. Treatment of the acute traumatic acromioclavicular separation. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2006;14(4):237-245. doi:10.1097/01.jsa.0000212330.32969.6e.

13. de Putter CE, van Beeck EF, Burdorf A, et al. Increase in upper extremity fractures in young male soccer players in the netherlands, 1998-2009. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(4):462-466. doi:10.1111/sms.12287.

14. Rockwood CJ, Williams G, Young D. Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CJ, Matsen FA III, eds. The Shoulder. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1998:483-553.

15. Pereira-Graterol E, Alvarez-Diaz P, Seijas R, Ares O, Cusco X, Cugat R. Treatment and evolution of grade III acromioclavicular dislocations in soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1633-1635. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2186-0.

16. Rahman RK, Levine WN, Ahmad CS. Elbow medial collateral ligament injuries. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2008;1(3-4):197-204. doi:10.1007/s12178-008-9026-3.

17. Redler LH, Watling JP, Ahmad CS. Physical examination of the throwing athlete's elbow. Am J Orthop. 2015;44(1):13-18.

18. Sayegh ET, Strauch RJ. Treatment of olecranon bursitis: A systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(11):1517-1536. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2088-3.

19. Weinstein PS, Canoso JJ, Wohlgethan JR. Long-term follow-up of corticosteroid injection for traumatic olecranon bursitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984;43(1):44-46.

20. Carlisle JC, Goldfarb CA, Mall N, Powell JW, Matava MJ. Upper extremity injuries in the national football league: Part II: Elbow, forearm, and wrist injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1945-1952. doi:10.1177/0363546508318198.

21. Dizdarevic I, Low S, Currie DW, Comstock RD, Hammoud S, Atanda A Jr. Epidemiology of elbow dislocations in high school athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):202-208. doi:10.1177/0363546515610527.

22. Saati AZ, McKee MD. Fracture-dislocation of the elbow: Diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Hand Clin. 2004;20(4):405-414.

23. Bancroft LW. Wrist injuries: A comparison between high- and low-impact sports. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013;51(2):299-311. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2012.09.017.

24. Belsky MR, Leibman MI, Ruchelsman DE. Scaphoid fracture in the elite athlete. Hand Clin. 2012;28(3):78, vii. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2012.05.005.

25. Mallee W, Doornberg JN, Ring D, van Dijk CN, Maas M, Goslings JC. Comparison of CT and MRI for diagnosis of suspected scaphoid fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(1):20-28. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01523.

26. Aitken S, Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of sports-related fractures of the hand. Injury. 2008;39(12):1377-1383. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.04.012.

27. Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. Injuries of the fingers and thumb in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(3):viii.

28. Walsh JJ 4th. Fractures of the hand and carpal navicular bone in athletes. South Med J. 2004;97(8):762-765.

29. Hong E. Hand injuries in sports medicine. Prim Care. 2005;32(1):91-103.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Marom is a Clinical Fellow and Dr. Williams is Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Sports Medicine & Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.

Address correspondence to: Riley J. Williams III, MD, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 (email, [email protected]).

Niv Marom, MD Riley J. Williams III, MD . Upper Extremity Injuries in Soccer. Am J Orthop.

October 9, 2018

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Marom is a Clinical Fellow and Dr. Williams is Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Sports Medicine & Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.

Address correspondence to: Riley J. Williams III, MD, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 (email, [email protected]).

Niv Marom, MD Riley J. Williams III, MD . Upper Extremity Injuries in Soccer. Am J Orthop.

October 9, 2018

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Marom is a Clinical Fellow and Dr. Williams is Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Sports Medicine & Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.

Address correspondence to: Riley J. Williams III, MD, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 (email, [email protected]).

Niv Marom, MD Riley J. Williams III, MD . Upper Extremity Injuries in Soccer. Am J Orthop.

October 9, 2018

ABSTRACT

Upper limb injuries in soccer represent only a marginal portion of injuries, however this is mainly true for outfield players. Goalkeepers are reported to have up to 5 times more upper extremity injuries, many of them requiring substantial time-loss for treatment and rehabilitation. The most common upper extremity injury locations are the shoulder/clavicle followed by the hand/finger/thumb, elbow, wrist, forearm, and upper arm. The mechanism of injury, presentation, physical examination, and imaging features all play a significant role in reaching the correct diagnosis. Taking to consideration the position the player plays and his demands will also enable tailoring the optimal treatment plan that allows timely and safe return to play. This article discusses common upper extremity injuries observed in soccer players, focusing on proper diagnosis and optimal management.

Continue to: Upper limb injuries in association with soccer...

 

 

Upper limb injuries in association with soccer have been reported to represent only 3% of all time-loss injuries in professional soccer players1. However, they are considered an increasing problem in recent years2-4 and have been reported in high proportions in children under the age of 15 years.5 Some of the reasons for the increase in upper extremity injuries may be explained by modern soccer tactics that have been characterized by high speed, pressing, and marking.2 Furthermore, upper extremity injuries may still be underestimated in soccer, mainly because outfield players are sometimes able to train and play even when they suffer from an upper extremity injury.

Unsurprisingly, upper extremity injuries are reported to be up to 5 times more common in goalkeepers than in outfield players,1,2 reaching a high rate of up to 18% of all injuries among professional goalkeepers. The usage of upper extremities to stop the ball and repeated reaching to the ball and landing on the ground with changing upper extremity positions are some of the contributors to the increased upper extremity injury risk in goalkeepers.

Following 57 male professional European soccer teams from 16 countries between the years 2001 and 2011, Ekstrand and colleagues1 showed that 90% of upper extremity injuries are traumatic, and only 10% are related to overuse. They also reported that the most common upper extremity injury location is the shoulder/clavicle (56%), followed by the hand/finger/thumb (24%), elbow (10%), wrist (5%), forearm (4%), and upper arm (1%). Specifically, the 6 most common injuries are acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) sprain (13%), shoulder dislocation (12%), hand metacarpal fracture (8%), shoulder rotator cuff tendinopathy (6%), hand phalanx fracture (6%), and shoulder ACJ dislocation (5%). 

This article will discuss common upper extremity injuries observed in soccer players, focusing on proper diagnosis and optimal management.

Continue to: THE SHOULDER...

 

 

THE SHOULDER

The majority of upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players are shoulder injuries.1,2,4 Almost a third of these injuries (28%) are considered severe, preventing participation in training and matches for 28 days or more.6Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that shoulder dislocation represents the most severe upper extremity injury with a mean of 41 days of absence from soccer. When considering the position of the player, they further demonstrated that absence from full training and matches is twice as long for goalkeepers as for outfield players, which reflects the importance of shoulder function for goalkeepers.

In terms of the mechanism of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players, more than half (56%) of these injuries occur with a high-energy mechanism in the recognized position of combined humeral abduction and external rotation against a force of external rotation and horizontal extension.3 However, almost a quarter (24%) occur with a mechanism of varied upper extremity position and low-energy trauma, and 20% of injuries are either a low energy injury with little or no contact or gradual onset. These unique characteristics of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players should be accounted for during training and may imply that current training programs are suboptimal for the prevention of upper extremity injuries and shoulder injuries. Ejnisman and colleagues2 reported on the development of a Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 11+ shoulder injury prevention program for soccer goalkeepers as one of the ways to promote training programs that address the risk of shoulder injuries.

Reporting on the management of severe shoulder injuries requiring surgery in 25 professional soccer players in England, between 2007 and 2011, Hart and Funk3 found that the majority of subjects (88%) reported a dislocation as a feature of their presentation. Twenty-one (84%) subjects were diagnosed with labral injuries, of which 7 had an associated Hill-Sachs lesion. Two (8%) subjects were diagnosed with rotator cuff tears requiring repair, and 2 (8%) subjects had a combination of rotator cuff and labral injury repair. All patients underwent arthroscopic repair, except for 5 who had a Latarjet coracoid transfer. Post-surgery, all players were able to return to unrestricted participation in soccer at a mean of 11.4 weeks, with no significant difference between goalkeepers and outfield players and no recurrences at a mean of 91 weeks’ follow-up. 

Up to one-third of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players are reported to be recurrences,1,3 which emphasizes the need to carefully assess soccer players before clearing them to return to play. These data raise the controversy over the treatment of first time shoulder dislocators and may support early surgical intervention.7-9 In terms of the preferred surgical intervention in these cases, Balg and Boileau10 suggested a simple scoring system based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and anteroposterior radiographs to help distinguish between patients who will benefit from an arthroscopic anterior stabilization using suture anchors and those who will require a bony procedure (open or arthroscopic). Cerciello and colleagues11 reported excellent results for bony stabilization (modified Latarjet) in a population of 26 soccer players (28 shoulders) affected by chronic anterior instability. Only 1 player did not return to soccer, and 18 players (20 shoulders, 71%) returned to the same level. One re-dislocation was noted in a goalkeeper 74 months after surgery.

An injury to the ACJ has been previously reported to be the most prevalent type of shoulder injury in contact sports.12In soccer, injury to the ACJ is responsible for 18% of upper extremity injuries, and the majority (72%) are sprains.1Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, implications of such an injury differ significantly between goalkeepers and outfield players with up to 3 times longer required absence periods for goalkeepers vs outfield players sustaining the same injury.

ACJ injury is commonly the result of a direct fall on the shoulder with the arm adducted or extended. Six grades of ACJ injuries have been described and distinguished by the injured anatomical structure (acromioclavicular ligaments and coracoclavicular ligaments) and the direction and magnitude of clavicular dislocation.13,14 Presentation will usually include anterior shoulder pain, a noticeable swelling or change in morphology of the lateral end of the clavicle (mainly in dislocation types), and sharp pain provoked by palpation of the ACJ. Radiographic imaging will confirm the diagnosis and help with identifying the specific grade/type of injury.

Decision making and management of acute ACJ injury should be based on the type/grade of injury. Nonoperative treatment is recommended for types I and II, and most athletes have a successful outcome with a full return to play.12Types IV, V, and VI are treated early with operative intervention, mostly due to the morbidity associated with prolonged dislocation of the joint and subsequent soft tissue damage.12 Treatment of type III injury remains controversial. Pereira-Graterol and colleagues15 reported the effectiveness of clavicular hook plate (DePuy Synthes) in the surgical stabilization of grade III ACJ dislocation in 11 professional soccer players. At a mean follow-up of 4 years, they showed excellent functional results with full shoulder range of motion at 5 weeks and latest return to soccer at 6 months. The hook plate was removed after 16 weeks in 10 patients in whom no apparent complication was observed.

Continue to: THE ELBOW...

 

 

THE ELBOW

Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that 10% of all upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players are elbow injuries, of which only 19% are considered severe injuries that require more than 28 days of absence from playing soccer. The most common elbow injuries in their cohort were elbow medial collateral ligament (MCL) sprain and olecranon bursitis.

Elbow MCL is the primary constraint of the elbow joint to valgus stress, and MCL sprain occurs when the elbow is subjected to a valgus, or laterally directed force, which distracts the medial side of the elbow, exceeding the tensile properties of the MCL.16 A thorough physical examination that includes valgus stress tests through the arc of elbow flexion and extension to elicit a possible subjective feeling of apprehension, instability, or localized pain is essential for optimal evaluation and treatment.16,17 Imaging studies (X-ray and stress X-rays, dynamic ultrasound, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and MR arthrography) have a role in further establishing the diagnosis and identifying possible additional associated injuries.16 The treatment plan should be specifically tailored to the individual athlete, depending on his demands and the degree of MCL injury. In soccer, which is a non-throwing shoulder sport, nonoperative treatment should be the preferred initial treatment in most cases. Ekstrand and colleagues1 showed that this injury requires a mean of 4 days of absence from soccer for outfield players and a mean of 21 days of absence from soccer for goalkeepers, thereby indicating more severe sprains and cautious return to soccer in goalkeepers. Athletes who fail nonoperative treatment are candidates for MCL reconstruction.16

The olecranon bursa is a synovium-lined sac that facilitates gliding between the olecranon and overlying skin. Olecranon bursitis is characterized by accumulation of fluid in the bursa with or without inflammation. The fluid can be serous, sanguineous, or purulent depending on the etiology.18 In soccer, traumatic etiology is common, but infection secondary to cuts or scratches of the skin around the elbow or previous therapeutic injections around the elbow should always be ruled out. Local pain, swelling, warmth, and redness are usually the presenting symptoms. Aseptic olecranon bursitis may be managed non-surgically with ‘‘benign neglect’’ and avoidance of pressure to the area, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, needle aspiration, corticosteroid injection, compression dressings, and/or padded splinting; whereas acute septic bursitis requires needle aspiration for diagnosis, appropriate oral or intravenous antibiotics directed toward the offending organism, and, when clinically indicated, surgical evacuation/excision of the bursa.18 When treating this condition with cortisone injection, possible complications, such as skin atrophy, secondary infection, and chronic local pain, have been reported and should be considered.19

Severe elbow injuries in professional athletes in general,20-22 and soccer players specifically, are elbow subluxations/dislocations and elbow fracture. The mechanism of injury is usually contact injury with an opponent player or a fall on the palm with the arm extended. Posterolateral is the most common type of elbow dislocation. Elbow dislocations are further classified into simple (no associated fractures) and complex (associated with fractures) categories.22 Simple dislocations are usually treated with early mobilization after closed reduction; it is associated with a low risk for re-dislocation and with generally good results. The complex type of elbow fracture dislocation is more difficult to treat, has higher complication and re-dislocation rates, and requires operative treatment in most cases compared with simple dislocation.22 The “terrible triad” of the elbow (posterior elbow dislocation, radial head fracture, and coronoid fracture) represents a specific complex elbow dislocation scenario that is difficult to manage because of conflicting aims of ensuring elbow stability while maintaining early range of motion.22

Isolated fracture around the elbow should be treated based on known principles of fracture management: mechanism of injury, fracture patterns, fracture displacement, intra-articular involvement, soft tissue condition, and associated injuries.

Continue to: THE WRIST...

 

 

THE WRIST

Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that 5% of all upper extremity injuries in their cohort of professional soccer players are wrist injuries, of which, only 2% are considered severe injuries that require >28 days of absence from playing soccer. The more common wrist injuries in soccer, which is considered a high-impact sport, are fractures (distal radius, scaphoid, capitate), and less reported injuries are dislocations (lunate, perilunate) and ligamentous injuries or tears (scapholunate ligament).23

Distal radius fractures in high-impact sports, like soccer, usually occur as a result of a fall on an out-stretched hand and will usually be more comminuted, displaced, and intra-articular compared with low-impact sports.23 All these aforementioned characteristics usually indicate surgical management of open reduction and internal fixation, which will allow for rapid start of rehabilitation and return to play.

Scaphoid fracture is the most common carpal bone fracture and presents unique challenges in terms of diagnosis and optimal treatment24 in professional athletes. A typical injury scenario would be a player falling on an outstretched hand and sustaining a scaphoid fracture during a match or training session. The player may acknowledge some wrist pain but will often continue to play with minimal or no limitation. As wrist pain and swelling become more evident after the match/training session, the player will seek medical evaluation.24 A complete wrist and upper extremity examination should be performed in addition to a specific assessment, which includes palpation of the distal scaphoid pole at the distal wrist flexion crease, palpation of the scaphoid waist through the wrist snuff box, and palpation dorsally just distal to the Lister tubercle at the scapholunate joint. Any wrist injury that results in decreased range of motion, snuff box swelling, and scaphoid tenderness should be further evaluated with imaging. Plain radiographs with special scaphoid views are the initial preferred imaging studies, but occult fracture will require an additional study such as a bone scan, CT, or MRI. Several studies have validated the benefit of MRI and the fact that it may outweigh the costs associated with lost productivity from unnecessary cast immobilization, especially in elite athletes.23-25Casting the patient with a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture has been the traditional treatment; however, stiffness, weakness, and deconditioning that can occur with long-term casting required for scaphoid fractures are significant impairments for the professional athlete and usually end the player’s season. Surgical treatment, which was traditionally indicated for displaced or proximal pole fractures, is currently also considered for non-displaced scaphoid waist fractures in professional athletes. This treatment allows for a rapid return to the rehabilitation of the extremity and possible early return to professional sport. In view of the known complications (eg, malunion, nonunion, and avascular necrosis), return to soccer can be considered when imaging confirms advanced healing, which some consider as at least 50% of bone fracture bridging on CT scan, no pain, excellent motion, and at least 80% of normal grip strength.24 Outfield players can return to play with a protective cast or brace until full healing is observed on imaging.

Continue to: THE HAND/FINGERS/THUMB...

 

 

THE HAND/FINGERS/THUMB

Almost a quarter of upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players were reported to involve the hand, fingers, and thumb. A quarter of them were classified as severe injuries requiring >28 days of absence from playing soccer.1Specifically, hand metacarpal and phalanx fractures are the most common reported injuries in sports in general,26 and in soccer,1 and account for 14% of all upper extremity injuries1 in professional soccer players. Goalkeepers require a functional hand to play, whereas an outfielder can play with protection on the injured area; thus, the period of absence from soccer in these injuries is significantly different between goalkeepers and outfielders with more than 4 times longer absence from soccer for a goalkeeper compared with an outfielder. The fifth ray has been shown to be the most frequently fractured ray in the hand in soccer with 51.7% of all hand fractures reported.26 The common mechanism is a full hit on the hand, and a direct hit from the ball is another possible mechanism in goalkeepers.

In general, the diagnosis of hand injuries requires evaluation of the mechanism of injury and injury symptoms, proper and comprehensive physical examination of the whole extremity, and prompt imaging. In most cases, plain radiographs in several projections will suffice for the diagnosis of obvious fractures, but CT scan is an additional modality that allows for improved appreciation of occult or complex and comminuted fracture patterns. MRI or ultrasound can be used additionally whenever associated soft tissue injury is suspected. Optimal management of the hand is based on the specific characteristics of the fractures, which include location, direction of the fracture line, presence of comminution, displacement, articular involvement, and associated soft tissue injury. Nondisplaced extra-articular fractures often can be treated with buddy taping or splinting, whereas intra-articular fractures often require surgical treatment. Displaced fractures of the hand have a tendency to angulate volarly because of attachments of the interosseous muscles. Marginal fractures or avulsion fractures involving the metacarpals or phalanges can be sentinels of serious associated soft tissue injuries.27

Phalangeal fractures can potentially affect the function of the entire hand; therefore, no malrotation is acceptable for phalangeal fractures because they can lead to overlap and malalignment of the digit. Displaced or malrotated fractures should be reduced either by closed or open techniques. Acceptable reduction is <6 mm of shortening, <15° of angulation, and no rotational deformity.27,28 Nondisplaced phalangeal fractures can be treated nonoperatively with buddy taping and splinting with good results.27 Interphalangeal (IP) dislocations can be reduced on the sidelines and then taped or splinted. Any injury with a force significant enough to cause joint dislocation indicates further evaluation for associated fractures and ligamentous injury or tear. The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint is the most common IP joint dislocation and is usually a dorsal dislocation. Reduction is often achieved by traction and flexion of the middle phalanx,27 followed by splinting of the finger with the PIP in 30° of flexion or an extension block splint.29 Successful reduction with no associated intra-articular fractures involving more than a third of the joint can be further managed nonoperatively with the splint, allowing 2 to 4 weeks for the volar plate, joint capsule, and collateral ligaments to heal. Additional 2 to 4 weeks of splinting with buddy taping to the adjacent finger is usually recommended.29

The “Mallet finger” injury can be observed in goalkeepers and is caused by a flexion force on the tip of the finger while the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint is extended. This force results in tearing of the extensor tendon or an avulsion fracture at the tendinous attachment on the dorsal lip of the distal phalangeal base. The classic mechanism of injury is an extended finger struck on the tip by a ball. Physical examination will indicate loss of DIP joint active extension, and the joint rests in an abnormally flexed position. Treatment typically consists of splinting the DIP joint in extension for 6 to 8 weeks. Operative treatment is reserved for severe injuries or fractures involving greater than one-third of the articular surface of the DIP joint or with failed nonoperative treatment.27 

Metacarpal fractures can be subdivided into distal, metacarpal neck, metacarpal shaft, and metacarpal base fractures. Metacarpal shaft fractures raise a specific concern regarding rotation, because even a small degree of rotation can create a substantial degree of deformity at the fingertip. This concern must be addressed during evaluation of the player. Fractures of the metacarpal base most commonly involve the fourth and fifth metacarpals and are often reduced easily but have a tendency to re-subluxate, which may indicate operative treatment. Most fractures of the metacarpals are low energy and result in simple fracture patterns that can be treated nonoperatively. Open reduction is reserved for high-energy trauma, fractures with excessive angulation, or multiple fractures.27

Continue to: An important subgroup of metacarpal injuries...

 

 

An important subgroup of metacarpal injuries involves the base of the thumb. These injuries result from an axial load applied to the thumb. The most common injury is the “Bennett fracture,” which is an intra-articular fracture or dislocation involving the base of the first metacarpal. Bennett fractures are unstable fractures; unless properly recognized and treated, this intra-articular fracture subluxation may result in an unstable arthritic first carpometacarpal joint. These fractures are most commonly treated with closed or open reduction combined with internal fixation.27 “Rolando fractures” are similar in location and etiology but are comminuted and usually require operative treatment.27, 29

Another common hand injury found in soccer goalkeepers and involving the base of the thumb is disruption of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) of the first metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint as a result of an acute radial or valgus stress on the thumb. Known as “gamekeeper’s thumb” or “skier’s thumb,” this injury can occur in the form of an avulsion fracture, an isolated ligament tear, or combined fracture and ligament rupture. On examination, swelling and tenderness over the thumb UCL are observed. A MCP joint stress test should be performed by gently applying a radially directed force to the thumb while stabilizing the metacarpal bone at both 0° and 30° at the MCP joint. Increased laxity, a soft or nonexistent end point, and gaping of the joint, as compared with the contralateral side, will indicate this injury.29 Radiographs may show a small avulsion fracture fragment at the ulnar aspect of the base of the first metacarpal and at the attachment of the UCL. A Stener lesion is an abnormality that occurs when the thumb adductor muscle aponeurosis interposes between the 2 ends of the ruptured UCL, preventing UCL healing by immobilization alone. Ultrasound and MRI are additional imaging modalities that can assist with the diagnosis of a Stener lesion. The presence of a Stener lesion is a prime indication for surgical intervention. A nondisplaced fracture or isolated ligament injury with no evidence of a Stener lesion can be treated nonoperatively with splinting of the thumb and may lead to healing and restoration of stability. However, in professional players, surgical repair is often times preferred.27

CONCLUSION

Upper extremity injuries are less common injuries among soccer players, but their prevalence is on the rise in recent years. Modern playing tactics and the increase in participation in soccer in younger age groups may be 2 contributing factors to this rise. Given the characteristics of their unique playing role and specific demands, the risk for upper extremity injuries among goalkeepers is significantly higher than that in outfielders and will usually result in a long absence period from soccer before they return to play. A thorough understanding of the mechanism of injury, players’ complaints and presentation, osseous and soft tissue involvement based on a systematic physical examination, imaging features, and treatment options is important for the optimal care of the players. Prompt and accurate diagnosis and appropriate management are essential for improved outcomes and timely return to play.

ABSTRACT

Upper limb injuries in soccer represent only a marginal portion of injuries, however this is mainly true for outfield players. Goalkeepers are reported to have up to 5 times more upper extremity injuries, many of them requiring substantial time-loss for treatment and rehabilitation. The most common upper extremity injury locations are the shoulder/clavicle followed by the hand/finger/thumb, elbow, wrist, forearm, and upper arm. The mechanism of injury, presentation, physical examination, and imaging features all play a significant role in reaching the correct diagnosis. Taking to consideration the position the player plays and his demands will also enable tailoring the optimal treatment plan that allows timely and safe return to play. This article discusses common upper extremity injuries observed in soccer players, focusing on proper diagnosis and optimal management.

Continue to: Upper limb injuries in association with soccer...

 

 

Upper limb injuries in association with soccer have been reported to represent only 3% of all time-loss injuries in professional soccer players1. However, they are considered an increasing problem in recent years2-4 and have been reported in high proportions in children under the age of 15 years.5 Some of the reasons for the increase in upper extremity injuries may be explained by modern soccer tactics that have been characterized by high speed, pressing, and marking.2 Furthermore, upper extremity injuries may still be underestimated in soccer, mainly because outfield players are sometimes able to train and play even when they suffer from an upper extremity injury.

Unsurprisingly, upper extremity injuries are reported to be up to 5 times more common in goalkeepers than in outfield players,1,2 reaching a high rate of up to 18% of all injuries among professional goalkeepers. The usage of upper extremities to stop the ball and repeated reaching to the ball and landing on the ground with changing upper extremity positions are some of the contributors to the increased upper extremity injury risk in goalkeepers.

Following 57 male professional European soccer teams from 16 countries between the years 2001 and 2011, Ekstrand and colleagues1 showed that 90% of upper extremity injuries are traumatic, and only 10% are related to overuse. They also reported that the most common upper extremity injury location is the shoulder/clavicle (56%), followed by the hand/finger/thumb (24%), elbow (10%), wrist (5%), forearm (4%), and upper arm (1%). Specifically, the 6 most common injuries are acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) sprain (13%), shoulder dislocation (12%), hand metacarpal fracture (8%), shoulder rotator cuff tendinopathy (6%), hand phalanx fracture (6%), and shoulder ACJ dislocation (5%). 

This article will discuss common upper extremity injuries observed in soccer players, focusing on proper diagnosis and optimal management.

Continue to: THE SHOULDER...

 

 

THE SHOULDER

The majority of upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players are shoulder injuries.1,2,4 Almost a third of these injuries (28%) are considered severe, preventing participation in training and matches for 28 days or more.6Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that shoulder dislocation represents the most severe upper extremity injury with a mean of 41 days of absence from soccer. When considering the position of the player, they further demonstrated that absence from full training and matches is twice as long for goalkeepers as for outfield players, which reflects the importance of shoulder function for goalkeepers.

In terms of the mechanism of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players, more than half (56%) of these injuries occur with a high-energy mechanism in the recognized position of combined humeral abduction and external rotation against a force of external rotation and horizontal extension.3 However, almost a quarter (24%) occur with a mechanism of varied upper extremity position and low-energy trauma, and 20% of injuries are either a low energy injury with little or no contact or gradual onset. These unique characteristics of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players should be accounted for during training and may imply that current training programs are suboptimal for the prevention of upper extremity injuries and shoulder injuries. Ejnisman and colleagues2 reported on the development of a Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 11+ shoulder injury prevention program for soccer goalkeepers as one of the ways to promote training programs that address the risk of shoulder injuries.

Reporting on the management of severe shoulder injuries requiring surgery in 25 professional soccer players in England, between 2007 and 2011, Hart and Funk3 found that the majority of subjects (88%) reported a dislocation as a feature of their presentation. Twenty-one (84%) subjects were diagnosed with labral injuries, of which 7 had an associated Hill-Sachs lesion. Two (8%) subjects were diagnosed with rotator cuff tears requiring repair, and 2 (8%) subjects had a combination of rotator cuff and labral injury repair. All patients underwent arthroscopic repair, except for 5 who had a Latarjet coracoid transfer. Post-surgery, all players were able to return to unrestricted participation in soccer at a mean of 11.4 weeks, with no significant difference between goalkeepers and outfield players and no recurrences at a mean of 91 weeks’ follow-up. 

Up to one-third of shoulder instability injuries in soccer players are reported to be recurrences,1,3 which emphasizes the need to carefully assess soccer players before clearing them to return to play. These data raise the controversy over the treatment of first time shoulder dislocators and may support early surgical intervention.7-9 In terms of the preferred surgical intervention in these cases, Balg and Boileau10 suggested a simple scoring system based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and anteroposterior radiographs to help distinguish between patients who will benefit from an arthroscopic anterior stabilization using suture anchors and those who will require a bony procedure (open or arthroscopic). Cerciello and colleagues11 reported excellent results for bony stabilization (modified Latarjet) in a population of 26 soccer players (28 shoulders) affected by chronic anterior instability. Only 1 player did not return to soccer, and 18 players (20 shoulders, 71%) returned to the same level. One re-dislocation was noted in a goalkeeper 74 months after surgery.

An injury to the ACJ has been previously reported to be the most prevalent type of shoulder injury in contact sports.12In soccer, injury to the ACJ is responsible for 18% of upper extremity injuries, and the majority (72%) are sprains.1Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, implications of such an injury differ significantly between goalkeepers and outfield players with up to 3 times longer required absence periods for goalkeepers vs outfield players sustaining the same injury.

ACJ injury is commonly the result of a direct fall on the shoulder with the arm adducted or extended. Six grades of ACJ injuries have been described and distinguished by the injured anatomical structure (acromioclavicular ligaments and coracoclavicular ligaments) and the direction and magnitude of clavicular dislocation.13,14 Presentation will usually include anterior shoulder pain, a noticeable swelling or change in morphology of the lateral end of the clavicle (mainly in dislocation types), and sharp pain provoked by palpation of the ACJ. Radiographic imaging will confirm the diagnosis and help with identifying the specific grade/type of injury.

Decision making and management of acute ACJ injury should be based on the type/grade of injury. Nonoperative treatment is recommended for types I and II, and most athletes have a successful outcome with a full return to play.12Types IV, V, and VI are treated early with operative intervention, mostly due to the morbidity associated with prolonged dislocation of the joint and subsequent soft tissue damage.12 Treatment of type III injury remains controversial. Pereira-Graterol and colleagues15 reported the effectiveness of clavicular hook plate (DePuy Synthes) in the surgical stabilization of grade III ACJ dislocation in 11 professional soccer players. At a mean follow-up of 4 years, they showed excellent functional results with full shoulder range of motion at 5 weeks and latest return to soccer at 6 months. The hook plate was removed after 16 weeks in 10 patients in whom no apparent complication was observed.

Continue to: THE ELBOW...

 

 

THE ELBOW

Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that 10% of all upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players are elbow injuries, of which only 19% are considered severe injuries that require more than 28 days of absence from playing soccer. The most common elbow injuries in their cohort were elbow medial collateral ligament (MCL) sprain and olecranon bursitis.

Elbow MCL is the primary constraint of the elbow joint to valgus stress, and MCL sprain occurs when the elbow is subjected to a valgus, or laterally directed force, which distracts the medial side of the elbow, exceeding the tensile properties of the MCL.16 A thorough physical examination that includes valgus stress tests through the arc of elbow flexion and extension to elicit a possible subjective feeling of apprehension, instability, or localized pain is essential for optimal evaluation and treatment.16,17 Imaging studies (X-ray and stress X-rays, dynamic ultrasound, computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and MR arthrography) have a role in further establishing the diagnosis and identifying possible additional associated injuries.16 The treatment plan should be specifically tailored to the individual athlete, depending on his demands and the degree of MCL injury. In soccer, which is a non-throwing shoulder sport, nonoperative treatment should be the preferred initial treatment in most cases. Ekstrand and colleagues1 showed that this injury requires a mean of 4 days of absence from soccer for outfield players and a mean of 21 days of absence from soccer for goalkeepers, thereby indicating more severe sprains and cautious return to soccer in goalkeepers. Athletes who fail nonoperative treatment are candidates for MCL reconstruction.16

The olecranon bursa is a synovium-lined sac that facilitates gliding between the olecranon and overlying skin. Olecranon bursitis is characterized by accumulation of fluid in the bursa with or without inflammation. The fluid can be serous, sanguineous, or purulent depending on the etiology.18 In soccer, traumatic etiology is common, but infection secondary to cuts or scratches of the skin around the elbow or previous therapeutic injections around the elbow should always be ruled out. Local pain, swelling, warmth, and redness are usually the presenting symptoms. Aseptic olecranon bursitis may be managed non-surgically with ‘‘benign neglect’’ and avoidance of pressure to the area, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, needle aspiration, corticosteroid injection, compression dressings, and/or padded splinting; whereas acute septic bursitis requires needle aspiration for diagnosis, appropriate oral or intravenous antibiotics directed toward the offending organism, and, when clinically indicated, surgical evacuation/excision of the bursa.18 When treating this condition with cortisone injection, possible complications, such as skin atrophy, secondary infection, and chronic local pain, have been reported and should be considered.19

Severe elbow injuries in professional athletes in general,20-22 and soccer players specifically, are elbow subluxations/dislocations and elbow fracture. The mechanism of injury is usually contact injury with an opponent player or a fall on the palm with the arm extended. Posterolateral is the most common type of elbow dislocation. Elbow dislocations are further classified into simple (no associated fractures) and complex (associated with fractures) categories.22 Simple dislocations are usually treated with early mobilization after closed reduction; it is associated with a low risk for re-dislocation and with generally good results. The complex type of elbow fracture dislocation is more difficult to treat, has higher complication and re-dislocation rates, and requires operative treatment in most cases compared with simple dislocation.22 The “terrible triad” of the elbow (posterior elbow dislocation, radial head fracture, and coronoid fracture) represents a specific complex elbow dislocation scenario that is difficult to manage because of conflicting aims of ensuring elbow stability while maintaining early range of motion.22

Isolated fracture around the elbow should be treated based on known principles of fracture management: mechanism of injury, fracture patterns, fracture displacement, intra-articular involvement, soft tissue condition, and associated injuries.

Continue to: THE WRIST...

 

 

THE WRIST

Ekstrand and colleagues1 reported that 5% of all upper extremity injuries in their cohort of professional soccer players are wrist injuries, of which, only 2% are considered severe injuries that require >28 days of absence from playing soccer. The more common wrist injuries in soccer, which is considered a high-impact sport, are fractures (distal radius, scaphoid, capitate), and less reported injuries are dislocations (lunate, perilunate) and ligamentous injuries or tears (scapholunate ligament).23

Distal radius fractures in high-impact sports, like soccer, usually occur as a result of a fall on an out-stretched hand and will usually be more comminuted, displaced, and intra-articular compared with low-impact sports.23 All these aforementioned characteristics usually indicate surgical management of open reduction and internal fixation, which will allow for rapid start of rehabilitation and return to play.

Scaphoid fracture is the most common carpal bone fracture and presents unique challenges in terms of diagnosis and optimal treatment24 in professional athletes. A typical injury scenario would be a player falling on an outstretched hand and sustaining a scaphoid fracture during a match or training session. The player may acknowledge some wrist pain but will often continue to play with minimal or no limitation. As wrist pain and swelling become more evident after the match/training session, the player will seek medical evaluation.24 A complete wrist and upper extremity examination should be performed in addition to a specific assessment, which includes palpation of the distal scaphoid pole at the distal wrist flexion crease, palpation of the scaphoid waist through the wrist snuff box, and palpation dorsally just distal to the Lister tubercle at the scapholunate joint. Any wrist injury that results in decreased range of motion, snuff box swelling, and scaphoid tenderness should be further evaluated with imaging. Plain radiographs with special scaphoid views are the initial preferred imaging studies, but occult fracture will require an additional study such as a bone scan, CT, or MRI. Several studies have validated the benefit of MRI and the fact that it may outweigh the costs associated with lost productivity from unnecessary cast immobilization, especially in elite athletes.23-25Casting the patient with a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture has been the traditional treatment; however, stiffness, weakness, and deconditioning that can occur with long-term casting required for scaphoid fractures are significant impairments for the professional athlete and usually end the player’s season. Surgical treatment, which was traditionally indicated for displaced or proximal pole fractures, is currently also considered for non-displaced scaphoid waist fractures in professional athletes. This treatment allows for a rapid return to the rehabilitation of the extremity and possible early return to professional sport. In view of the known complications (eg, malunion, nonunion, and avascular necrosis), return to soccer can be considered when imaging confirms advanced healing, which some consider as at least 50% of bone fracture bridging on CT scan, no pain, excellent motion, and at least 80% of normal grip strength.24 Outfield players can return to play with a protective cast or brace until full healing is observed on imaging.

Continue to: THE HAND/FINGERS/THUMB...

 

 

THE HAND/FINGERS/THUMB

Almost a quarter of upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players were reported to involve the hand, fingers, and thumb. A quarter of them were classified as severe injuries requiring >28 days of absence from playing soccer.1Specifically, hand metacarpal and phalanx fractures are the most common reported injuries in sports in general,26 and in soccer,1 and account for 14% of all upper extremity injuries1 in professional soccer players. Goalkeepers require a functional hand to play, whereas an outfielder can play with protection on the injured area; thus, the period of absence from soccer in these injuries is significantly different between goalkeepers and outfielders with more than 4 times longer absence from soccer for a goalkeeper compared with an outfielder. The fifth ray has been shown to be the most frequently fractured ray in the hand in soccer with 51.7% of all hand fractures reported.26 The common mechanism is a full hit on the hand, and a direct hit from the ball is another possible mechanism in goalkeepers.

In general, the diagnosis of hand injuries requires evaluation of the mechanism of injury and injury symptoms, proper and comprehensive physical examination of the whole extremity, and prompt imaging. In most cases, plain radiographs in several projections will suffice for the diagnosis of obvious fractures, but CT scan is an additional modality that allows for improved appreciation of occult or complex and comminuted fracture patterns. MRI or ultrasound can be used additionally whenever associated soft tissue injury is suspected. Optimal management of the hand is based on the specific characteristics of the fractures, which include location, direction of the fracture line, presence of comminution, displacement, articular involvement, and associated soft tissue injury. Nondisplaced extra-articular fractures often can be treated with buddy taping or splinting, whereas intra-articular fractures often require surgical treatment. Displaced fractures of the hand have a tendency to angulate volarly because of attachments of the interosseous muscles. Marginal fractures or avulsion fractures involving the metacarpals or phalanges can be sentinels of serious associated soft tissue injuries.27

Phalangeal fractures can potentially affect the function of the entire hand; therefore, no malrotation is acceptable for phalangeal fractures because they can lead to overlap and malalignment of the digit. Displaced or malrotated fractures should be reduced either by closed or open techniques. Acceptable reduction is <6 mm of shortening, <15° of angulation, and no rotational deformity.27,28 Nondisplaced phalangeal fractures can be treated nonoperatively with buddy taping and splinting with good results.27 Interphalangeal (IP) dislocations can be reduced on the sidelines and then taped or splinted. Any injury with a force significant enough to cause joint dislocation indicates further evaluation for associated fractures and ligamentous injury or tear. The proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint is the most common IP joint dislocation and is usually a dorsal dislocation. Reduction is often achieved by traction and flexion of the middle phalanx,27 followed by splinting of the finger with the PIP in 30° of flexion or an extension block splint.29 Successful reduction with no associated intra-articular fractures involving more than a third of the joint can be further managed nonoperatively with the splint, allowing 2 to 4 weeks for the volar plate, joint capsule, and collateral ligaments to heal. Additional 2 to 4 weeks of splinting with buddy taping to the adjacent finger is usually recommended.29

The “Mallet finger” injury can be observed in goalkeepers and is caused by a flexion force on the tip of the finger while the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint is extended. This force results in tearing of the extensor tendon or an avulsion fracture at the tendinous attachment on the dorsal lip of the distal phalangeal base. The classic mechanism of injury is an extended finger struck on the tip by a ball. Physical examination will indicate loss of DIP joint active extension, and the joint rests in an abnormally flexed position. Treatment typically consists of splinting the DIP joint in extension for 6 to 8 weeks. Operative treatment is reserved for severe injuries or fractures involving greater than one-third of the articular surface of the DIP joint or with failed nonoperative treatment.27 

Metacarpal fractures can be subdivided into distal, metacarpal neck, metacarpal shaft, and metacarpal base fractures. Metacarpal shaft fractures raise a specific concern regarding rotation, because even a small degree of rotation can create a substantial degree of deformity at the fingertip. This concern must be addressed during evaluation of the player. Fractures of the metacarpal base most commonly involve the fourth and fifth metacarpals and are often reduced easily but have a tendency to re-subluxate, which may indicate operative treatment. Most fractures of the metacarpals are low energy and result in simple fracture patterns that can be treated nonoperatively. Open reduction is reserved for high-energy trauma, fractures with excessive angulation, or multiple fractures.27

Continue to: An important subgroup of metacarpal injuries...

 

 

An important subgroup of metacarpal injuries involves the base of the thumb. These injuries result from an axial load applied to the thumb. The most common injury is the “Bennett fracture,” which is an intra-articular fracture or dislocation involving the base of the first metacarpal. Bennett fractures are unstable fractures; unless properly recognized and treated, this intra-articular fracture subluxation may result in an unstable arthritic first carpometacarpal joint. These fractures are most commonly treated with closed or open reduction combined with internal fixation.27 “Rolando fractures” are similar in location and etiology but are comminuted and usually require operative treatment.27, 29

Another common hand injury found in soccer goalkeepers and involving the base of the thumb is disruption of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) of the first metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint as a result of an acute radial or valgus stress on the thumb. Known as “gamekeeper’s thumb” or “skier’s thumb,” this injury can occur in the form of an avulsion fracture, an isolated ligament tear, or combined fracture and ligament rupture. On examination, swelling and tenderness over the thumb UCL are observed. A MCP joint stress test should be performed by gently applying a radially directed force to the thumb while stabilizing the metacarpal bone at both 0° and 30° at the MCP joint. Increased laxity, a soft or nonexistent end point, and gaping of the joint, as compared with the contralateral side, will indicate this injury.29 Radiographs may show a small avulsion fracture fragment at the ulnar aspect of the base of the first metacarpal and at the attachment of the UCL. A Stener lesion is an abnormality that occurs when the thumb adductor muscle aponeurosis interposes between the 2 ends of the ruptured UCL, preventing UCL healing by immobilization alone. Ultrasound and MRI are additional imaging modalities that can assist with the diagnosis of a Stener lesion. The presence of a Stener lesion is a prime indication for surgical intervention. A nondisplaced fracture or isolated ligament injury with no evidence of a Stener lesion can be treated nonoperatively with splinting of the thumb and may lead to healing and restoration of stability. However, in professional players, surgical repair is often times preferred.27

CONCLUSION

Upper extremity injuries are less common injuries among soccer players, but their prevalence is on the rise in recent years. Modern playing tactics and the increase in participation in soccer in younger age groups may be 2 contributing factors to this rise. Given the characteristics of their unique playing role and specific demands, the risk for upper extremity injuries among goalkeepers is significantly higher than that in outfielders and will usually result in a long absence period from soccer before they return to play. A thorough understanding of the mechanism of injury, players’ complaints and presentation, osseous and soft tissue involvement based on a systematic physical examination, imaging features, and treatment options is important for the optimal care of the players. Prompt and accurate diagnosis and appropriate management are essential for improved outcomes and timely return to play.

References

1. Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Tornqvist H, et al. Upper extremity injuries in male elite football players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1626-1632. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2164-6.

2. Ejnisman B, Barbosa G, Andreoli CV, et al. Shoulder injuries in soccer goalkeepers: Review and development of a FIFA 11+ shoulder injury prevention program. Open Access J Sports Med. 2016;7:75-80. doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S97917.

3. Hart D, Funk L. Serious shoulder injuries in professional soccer: Return to participation after surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2123-2129. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2796-1.

4. Longo UG, Loppini M, Berton A, Martinelli N, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Shoulder injuries in soccer players. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2012;9(3):138-141.

5. Faude O, Rossler R, Junge A. Football injuries in children and adolescent players: Are there clues for prevention? Sports Med. 2013;43(9):819-837. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0061-x.

6. Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Injury incidence and injury patterns in professional football: The UEFA injury study. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(7):553-558. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.060582.

7. Boone JL, Arciero RA. First-time anterior shoulder dislocations: Has the standard changed? Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(5):355-360. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.062596.

8. Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD004325.

9. Kirkley A, Werstine R, Ratjek A, Griffin S. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder: Long-term evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(1):55-63.

10. Balg F, Boileau P. The instability severity index score. A simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(11):1470-1477.

11. Cerciello S, Edwards TB, Walch G. Chronic anterior glenohumeral instability in soccer players: Results for a series of 28 shoulders treated with the latarjet procedure. J Orthop Traumatol. 2012;13(4):197-202. doi:10.1007/s10195-012-0201-3.

12. Bishop JY, Kaeding C. Treatment of the acute traumatic acromioclavicular separation. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2006;14(4):237-245. doi:10.1097/01.jsa.0000212330.32969.6e.

13. de Putter CE, van Beeck EF, Burdorf A, et al. Increase in upper extremity fractures in young male soccer players in the netherlands, 1998-2009. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(4):462-466. doi:10.1111/sms.12287.

14. Rockwood CJ, Williams G, Young D. Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CJ, Matsen FA III, eds. The Shoulder. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1998:483-553.

15. Pereira-Graterol E, Alvarez-Diaz P, Seijas R, Ares O, Cusco X, Cugat R. Treatment and evolution of grade III acromioclavicular dislocations in soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1633-1635. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2186-0.

16. Rahman RK, Levine WN, Ahmad CS. Elbow medial collateral ligament injuries. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2008;1(3-4):197-204. doi:10.1007/s12178-008-9026-3.

17. Redler LH, Watling JP, Ahmad CS. Physical examination of the throwing athlete's elbow. Am J Orthop. 2015;44(1):13-18.

18. Sayegh ET, Strauch RJ. Treatment of olecranon bursitis: A systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(11):1517-1536. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2088-3.

19. Weinstein PS, Canoso JJ, Wohlgethan JR. Long-term follow-up of corticosteroid injection for traumatic olecranon bursitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984;43(1):44-46.

20. Carlisle JC, Goldfarb CA, Mall N, Powell JW, Matava MJ. Upper extremity injuries in the national football league: Part II: Elbow, forearm, and wrist injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1945-1952. doi:10.1177/0363546508318198.

21. Dizdarevic I, Low S, Currie DW, Comstock RD, Hammoud S, Atanda A Jr. Epidemiology of elbow dislocations in high school athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):202-208. doi:10.1177/0363546515610527.

22. Saati AZ, McKee MD. Fracture-dislocation of the elbow: Diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Hand Clin. 2004;20(4):405-414.

23. Bancroft LW. Wrist injuries: A comparison between high- and low-impact sports. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013;51(2):299-311. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2012.09.017.

24. Belsky MR, Leibman MI, Ruchelsman DE. Scaphoid fracture in the elite athlete. Hand Clin. 2012;28(3):78, vii. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2012.05.005.

25. Mallee W, Doornberg JN, Ring D, van Dijk CN, Maas M, Goslings JC. Comparison of CT and MRI for diagnosis of suspected scaphoid fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(1):20-28. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01523.

26. Aitken S, Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of sports-related fractures of the hand. Injury. 2008;39(12):1377-1383. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.04.012.

27. Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. Injuries of the fingers and thumb in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(3):viii.

28. Walsh JJ 4th. Fractures of the hand and carpal navicular bone in athletes. South Med J. 2004;97(8):762-765.

29. Hong E. Hand injuries in sports medicine. Prim Care. 2005;32(1):91-103.

References

1. Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Tornqvist H, et al. Upper extremity injuries in male elite football players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1626-1632. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2164-6.

2. Ejnisman B, Barbosa G, Andreoli CV, et al. Shoulder injuries in soccer goalkeepers: Review and development of a FIFA 11+ shoulder injury prevention program. Open Access J Sports Med. 2016;7:75-80. doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S97917.

3. Hart D, Funk L. Serious shoulder injuries in professional soccer: Return to participation after surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2123-2129. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2796-1.

4. Longo UG, Loppini M, Berton A, Martinelli N, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Shoulder injuries in soccer players. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2012;9(3):138-141.

5. Faude O, Rossler R, Junge A. Football injuries in children and adolescent players: Are there clues for prevention? Sports Med. 2013;43(9):819-837. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0061-x.

6. Ekstrand J, Hagglund M, Walden M. Injury incidence and injury patterns in professional football: The UEFA injury study. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(7):553-558. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.060582.

7. Boone JL, Arciero RA. First-time anterior shoulder dislocations: Has the standard changed? Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(5):355-360. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.062596.

8. Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD004325.

9. Kirkley A, Werstine R, Ratjek A, Griffin S. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder: Long-term evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(1):55-63.

10. Balg F, Boileau P. The instability severity index score. A simple pre-operative score to select patients for arthroscopic or open shoulder stabilisation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(11):1470-1477.

11. Cerciello S, Edwards TB, Walch G. Chronic anterior glenohumeral instability in soccer players: Results for a series of 28 shoulders treated with the latarjet procedure. J Orthop Traumatol. 2012;13(4):197-202. doi:10.1007/s10195-012-0201-3.

12. Bishop JY, Kaeding C. Treatment of the acute traumatic acromioclavicular separation. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2006;14(4):237-245. doi:10.1097/01.jsa.0000212330.32969.6e.

13. de Putter CE, van Beeck EF, Burdorf A, et al. Increase in upper extremity fractures in young male soccer players in the netherlands, 1998-2009. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(4):462-466. doi:10.1111/sms.12287.

14. Rockwood CJ, Williams G, Young D. Disorders of the acromioclavicular joint. In: Rockwood CJ, Matsen FA III, eds. The Shoulder. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1998:483-553.

15. Pereira-Graterol E, Alvarez-Diaz P, Seijas R, Ares O, Cusco X, Cugat R. Treatment and evolution of grade III acromioclavicular dislocations in soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(7):1633-1635. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2186-0.

16. Rahman RK, Levine WN, Ahmad CS. Elbow medial collateral ligament injuries. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2008;1(3-4):197-204. doi:10.1007/s12178-008-9026-3.

17. Redler LH, Watling JP, Ahmad CS. Physical examination of the throwing athlete's elbow. Am J Orthop. 2015;44(1):13-18.

18. Sayegh ET, Strauch RJ. Treatment of olecranon bursitis: A systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(11):1517-1536. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2088-3.

19. Weinstein PS, Canoso JJ, Wohlgethan JR. Long-term follow-up of corticosteroid injection for traumatic olecranon bursitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984;43(1):44-46.

20. Carlisle JC, Goldfarb CA, Mall N, Powell JW, Matava MJ. Upper extremity injuries in the national football league: Part II: Elbow, forearm, and wrist injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1945-1952. doi:10.1177/0363546508318198.

21. Dizdarevic I, Low S, Currie DW, Comstock RD, Hammoud S, Atanda A Jr. Epidemiology of elbow dislocations in high school athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):202-208. doi:10.1177/0363546515610527.

22. Saati AZ, McKee MD. Fracture-dislocation of the elbow: Diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Hand Clin. 2004;20(4):405-414.

23. Bancroft LW. Wrist injuries: A comparison between high- and low-impact sports. Radiol Clin North Am. 2013;51(2):299-311. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2012.09.017.

24. Belsky MR, Leibman MI, Ruchelsman DE. Scaphoid fracture in the elite athlete. Hand Clin. 2012;28(3):78, vii. doi:10.1016/j.hcl.2012.05.005.

25. Mallee W, Doornberg JN, Ring D, van Dijk CN, Maas M, Goslings JC. Comparison of CT and MRI for diagnosis of suspected scaphoid fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(1):20-28. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01523.

26. Aitken S, Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of sports-related fractures of the hand. Injury. 2008;39(12):1377-1383. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.04.012.

27. Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. Injuries of the fingers and thumb in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(3):viii.

28. Walsh JJ 4th. Fractures of the hand and carpal navicular bone in athletes. South Med J. 2004;97(8):762-765.

29. Hong E. Hand injuries in sports medicine. Prim Care. 2005;32(1):91-103.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Inside the Article

TAKE-HOME POINTS

  • Upper extremity injuries in soccer are not common, however they can reach up to 18% of all injuries in professional goalkeepers. 
  • Common injury locations in the upper extremity in soccer are the shoulder/clavicle, hand/finger/thumb, the elbow, and the wrist and most of these injuries are traumatic injuries.
  • Mechanism of injury, players’ complaints and presentation, physical examination, and imaging features are all important for a proper evaluation and optimal management.
  • Position of play is an important consideration in the management of upper extremity injuries in soccer. Outfield players may be able to return to play before a complete resolution of their injury, with protective accessories.
  • Prompt and accurate diagnosis and appropriate management are essential for improved outcomes and timely return to play.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 04/01/2019 - 10:00
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 04/01/2019 - 10:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 04/01/2019 - 10:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Vancomycin loading boost yields better C. diff outcomes

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 10/21/2020 - 14:17
Display Headline
Vancomycin loading boost yields better C. diff outcomes

– A heightened loading dose of vancomycin may lead to faster recovery and greater efficacy in Clostridium difficile infections, according to the results of a quasi-experimental study presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The study looked at a loading dose of 500 mg of vancomycin delivered four times per day for the first 48 hours, followed by a step down to 125 mg every 6 hours. It came on the heels of an attempted randomized, clinical trial that was inconclusive because of insufficient recruitment. Still, the results were promising enough to convince the Yale New Haven Hospital to make it standard practice in C. difficile patients.

Samad Tirmizi, PharmD, an infectious disease pharmacist at Stony Brook University (N.Y.), shares the results of a comparison of outcomes before and after the initiation of this treatment protocol in a video interview.

The approach grew out of concerns that vancomycin may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the colon early in treatment. A pharmacokinetics study published in 2010 suggested that a high initial loading led to higher fecal vancomycin levels, even in patients with increased stool frequency (BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 30;10:363).

SOURCE: Tirmizi S et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 1980.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

– A heightened loading dose of vancomycin may lead to faster recovery and greater efficacy in Clostridium difficile infections, according to the results of a quasi-experimental study presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The study looked at a loading dose of 500 mg of vancomycin delivered four times per day for the first 48 hours, followed by a step down to 125 mg every 6 hours. It came on the heels of an attempted randomized, clinical trial that was inconclusive because of insufficient recruitment. Still, the results were promising enough to convince the Yale New Haven Hospital to make it standard practice in C. difficile patients.

Samad Tirmizi, PharmD, an infectious disease pharmacist at Stony Brook University (N.Y.), shares the results of a comparison of outcomes before and after the initiation of this treatment protocol in a video interview.

The approach grew out of concerns that vancomycin may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the colon early in treatment. A pharmacokinetics study published in 2010 suggested that a high initial loading led to higher fecal vancomycin levels, even in patients with increased stool frequency (BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 30;10:363).

SOURCE: Tirmizi S et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 1980.

– A heightened loading dose of vancomycin may lead to faster recovery and greater efficacy in Clostridium difficile infections, according to the results of a quasi-experimental study presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The study looked at a loading dose of 500 mg of vancomycin delivered four times per day for the first 48 hours, followed by a step down to 125 mg every 6 hours. It came on the heels of an attempted randomized, clinical trial that was inconclusive because of insufficient recruitment. Still, the results were promising enough to convince the Yale New Haven Hospital to make it standard practice in C. difficile patients.

Samad Tirmizi, PharmD, an infectious disease pharmacist at Stony Brook University (N.Y.), shares the results of a comparison of outcomes before and after the initiation of this treatment protocol in a video interview.

The approach grew out of concerns that vancomycin may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the colon early in treatment. A pharmacokinetics study published in 2010 suggested that a high initial loading led to higher fecal vancomycin levels, even in patients with increased stool frequency (BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 30;10:363).

SOURCE: Tirmizi S et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 1980.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Vancomycin loading boost yields better C. diff outcomes
Display Headline
Vancomycin loading boost yields better C. diff outcomes
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM IDWEEK 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article

Precision medicine poised to improve IPF management

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 12/08/2018 - 15:23

 

– Although the research is in early phases, precision medicine is on the cusp of developments that will improve the care of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Justin Oldham, MD, said in a plenary presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Vidyard Video


“IPF is a highly variable disease,” said Dr. Oldham, director of the Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of California, Davis. “Some patients have more rapidly progressive disease than others, and so using precision medicine to identify those who are most likely to have that progressive phenotype is very important, not only for risk stratification but also treatment considerations.”

Some retrospective studies suggest certain subgroups of patients with IPF are genetically predisposed to respond to certain types of therapy, he said in a video interview. Now, researchers are in the process of submitting grants to better study that in a prospective fashion.

Dr. Oldham reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Lung Association, and the ACCP, as well as consulting and speaker fees from Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Although the research is in early phases, precision medicine is on the cusp of developments that will improve the care of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Justin Oldham, MD, said in a plenary presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Vidyard Video


“IPF is a highly variable disease,” said Dr. Oldham, director of the Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of California, Davis. “Some patients have more rapidly progressive disease than others, and so using precision medicine to identify those who are most likely to have that progressive phenotype is very important, not only for risk stratification but also treatment considerations.”

Some retrospective studies suggest certain subgroups of patients with IPF are genetically predisposed to respond to certain types of therapy, he said in a video interview. Now, researchers are in the process of submitting grants to better study that in a prospective fashion.

Dr. Oldham reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Lung Association, and the ACCP, as well as consulting and speaker fees from Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim.

 

– Although the research is in early phases, precision medicine is on the cusp of developments that will improve the care of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Justin Oldham, MD, said in a plenary presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Vidyard Video


“IPF is a highly variable disease,” said Dr. Oldham, director of the Interstitial Lung Disease Program at the University of California, Davis. “Some patients have more rapidly progressive disease than others, and so using precision medicine to identify those who are most likely to have that progressive phenotype is very important, not only for risk stratification but also treatment considerations.”

Some retrospective studies suggest certain subgroups of patients with IPF are genetically predisposed to respond to certain types of therapy, he said in a video interview. Now, researchers are in the process of submitting grants to better study that in a prospective fashion.

Dr. Oldham reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the American Lung Association, and the ACCP, as well as consulting and speaker fees from Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM CHEST 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Low-FODMAP diet improves fecal incontinence in patients with loose stool

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 12/08/2018 - 15:23

 

– A low fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet was associated with improvement in fecal incontinence in 64.6% of patients who received dietary training, according to recent research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News
Dr. Stacy Menees

“In this case series, the low-FODMAP diet improved fecal incontinence in two-thirds of patients with fecal incontinence and loose stools,” Stacy Menees, MD, MS, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in her presentation.

Dr. Menees and her colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 65 patients in the Michigan Bowel Control clinic with fecal incontinence (FI) “without alarming features” who were recommended a low FODMAP diet and received formal dietary teaching between August 2012 and December 2017. Patients received the teaching from a Michigan Medicine gastrointestinal dietitian. The dietitians performed a semi-quantitative analysis of patient response, including complete response, Dr. Menees said.

If we are going to help people with fecal incontinence, the key is to concentrate on the area of their stool consistency,” she explained. “We know that foods high in fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols, otherwise known as FODMAPS, can cause diarrhea and urgency.”

These FODMAP foods can include fruits with fructose exceeding glucose, fructan-containing vegetables, wheat-based products, sorbitol- and lactose-containing foods, and raffinose-containing foods, Dr. Menees said.

“We know from observations in data and research from the Monash University and our own group that patients with irritable bowel syndrome who are on a [low-]FODMAP diet [get relief from] their symptoms,” she added.

Most of the patients were female, and most were white. The mean age was 61.9 years, and mean body mass index was 26.7 kg/m2. Among the patients, 27.7% had irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), 9.2% had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 16.9% had diabetes mellitus, and 20% had a prior cholecystectomy.

With regard to reports of loose stool and FI, 46.1% of patients said they had loose stool daily with a mean of 2.8 loose bowel movements daily. More than half of the patients (60.5%) reported FI daily; 37.8% said they experienced weekly FI, and 4.6% reported monthly FI. The number of patients reporting FI was higher than 100% because some patients reported in the chart that they had FI daily or weekly, Dr. Menees said.

FI improvement was reported by 64.6% of patients, with 88.1% of responders having a greater than 50% reduction in FI and 35.7% of patients experiencing complete resolution of FI. There were no serious adverse events in the study, Dr. Menees noted.

“The three patients with postinfection IBS and fecal incontinence had no response to a low-FODMAP diet,” she said. “Our dietitians noted that onion and garlic were the triggers that were most often identified.”

Limitations include the retrospective chart review design and small number of patients, which may overestimate or underestimate the study results, and the fact that the study was done at a tertiary care center, Dr. Menees said.

“We are nearing the completion of a confirmatory, prospective, pilot randomized clinical trial to confirm the efficacy of a low-FODMAP diet in patients who suffer from fecal incontinence and loose stools,” she concluded.

Dr. Menees reports being a consultant for Synergy.

SOURCE: Menees SB et al. ACG 2018. Presentation 9.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– A low fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet was associated with improvement in fecal incontinence in 64.6% of patients who received dietary training, according to recent research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News
Dr. Stacy Menees

“In this case series, the low-FODMAP diet improved fecal incontinence in two-thirds of patients with fecal incontinence and loose stools,” Stacy Menees, MD, MS, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in her presentation.

Dr. Menees and her colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 65 patients in the Michigan Bowel Control clinic with fecal incontinence (FI) “without alarming features” who were recommended a low FODMAP diet and received formal dietary teaching between August 2012 and December 2017. Patients received the teaching from a Michigan Medicine gastrointestinal dietitian. The dietitians performed a semi-quantitative analysis of patient response, including complete response, Dr. Menees said.

If we are going to help people with fecal incontinence, the key is to concentrate on the area of their stool consistency,” she explained. “We know that foods high in fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols, otherwise known as FODMAPS, can cause diarrhea and urgency.”

These FODMAP foods can include fruits with fructose exceeding glucose, fructan-containing vegetables, wheat-based products, sorbitol- and lactose-containing foods, and raffinose-containing foods, Dr. Menees said.

“We know from observations in data and research from the Monash University and our own group that patients with irritable bowel syndrome who are on a [low-]FODMAP diet [get relief from] their symptoms,” she added.

Most of the patients were female, and most were white. The mean age was 61.9 years, and mean body mass index was 26.7 kg/m2. Among the patients, 27.7% had irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), 9.2% had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 16.9% had diabetes mellitus, and 20% had a prior cholecystectomy.

With regard to reports of loose stool and FI, 46.1% of patients said they had loose stool daily with a mean of 2.8 loose bowel movements daily. More than half of the patients (60.5%) reported FI daily; 37.8% said they experienced weekly FI, and 4.6% reported monthly FI. The number of patients reporting FI was higher than 100% because some patients reported in the chart that they had FI daily or weekly, Dr. Menees said.

FI improvement was reported by 64.6% of patients, with 88.1% of responders having a greater than 50% reduction in FI and 35.7% of patients experiencing complete resolution of FI. There were no serious adverse events in the study, Dr. Menees noted.

“The three patients with postinfection IBS and fecal incontinence had no response to a low-FODMAP diet,” she said. “Our dietitians noted that onion and garlic were the triggers that were most often identified.”

Limitations include the retrospective chart review design and small number of patients, which may overestimate or underestimate the study results, and the fact that the study was done at a tertiary care center, Dr. Menees said.

“We are nearing the completion of a confirmatory, prospective, pilot randomized clinical trial to confirm the efficacy of a low-FODMAP diet in patients who suffer from fecal incontinence and loose stools,” she concluded.

Dr. Menees reports being a consultant for Synergy.

SOURCE: Menees SB et al. ACG 2018. Presentation 9.

 

– A low fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet was associated with improvement in fecal incontinence in 64.6% of patients who received dietary training, according to recent research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News
Dr. Stacy Menees

“In this case series, the low-FODMAP diet improved fecal incontinence in two-thirds of patients with fecal incontinence and loose stools,” Stacy Menees, MD, MS, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in her presentation.

Dr. Menees and her colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 65 patients in the Michigan Bowel Control clinic with fecal incontinence (FI) “without alarming features” who were recommended a low FODMAP diet and received formal dietary teaching between August 2012 and December 2017. Patients received the teaching from a Michigan Medicine gastrointestinal dietitian. The dietitians performed a semi-quantitative analysis of patient response, including complete response, Dr. Menees said.

If we are going to help people with fecal incontinence, the key is to concentrate on the area of their stool consistency,” she explained. “We know that foods high in fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols, otherwise known as FODMAPS, can cause diarrhea and urgency.”

These FODMAP foods can include fruits with fructose exceeding glucose, fructan-containing vegetables, wheat-based products, sorbitol- and lactose-containing foods, and raffinose-containing foods, Dr. Menees said.

“We know from observations in data and research from the Monash University and our own group that patients with irritable bowel syndrome who are on a [low-]FODMAP diet [get relief from] their symptoms,” she added.

Most of the patients were female, and most were white. The mean age was 61.9 years, and mean body mass index was 26.7 kg/m2. Among the patients, 27.7% had irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), 9.2% had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 16.9% had diabetes mellitus, and 20% had a prior cholecystectomy.

With regard to reports of loose stool and FI, 46.1% of patients said they had loose stool daily with a mean of 2.8 loose bowel movements daily. More than half of the patients (60.5%) reported FI daily; 37.8% said they experienced weekly FI, and 4.6% reported monthly FI. The number of patients reporting FI was higher than 100% because some patients reported in the chart that they had FI daily or weekly, Dr. Menees said.

FI improvement was reported by 64.6% of patients, with 88.1% of responders having a greater than 50% reduction in FI and 35.7% of patients experiencing complete resolution of FI. There were no serious adverse events in the study, Dr. Menees noted.

“The three patients with postinfection IBS and fecal incontinence had no response to a low-FODMAP diet,” she said. “Our dietitians noted that onion and garlic were the triggers that were most often identified.”

Limitations include the retrospective chart review design and small number of patients, which may overestimate or underestimate the study results, and the fact that the study was done at a tertiary care center, Dr. Menees said.

“We are nearing the completion of a confirmatory, prospective, pilot randomized clinical trial to confirm the efficacy of a low-FODMAP diet in patients who suffer from fecal incontinence and loose stools,” she concluded.

Dr. Menees reports being a consultant for Synergy.

SOURCE: Menees SB et al. ACG 2018. Presentation 9.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACG 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Patients who underwent formal dietary teaching for a fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet showed associated improvements in fecal incontinence.

Major finding: Among patients with fecal incontinence, 64.6% experienced improvement; of these, 88.1% of responders had a greater than 50% reduction in fecal incontinence and 35.7% experienced complete resolution of fecal incontinence.

Study details: A retrospective chart review of 65 patients with fecal incontinence who received formal dietary teaching at the Michigan Bowel Control clinic.

Disclosures: Dr. Menees reports being a consultant for Synergy.

Source: Menees SB et al. ACG 2018. Presentation 9.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Guidelines outline patient-centered approach to type 2 diabetes

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:17

 

BERLIN – Providing patient-centered care is at the heart of managing hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and is emphasized in a consensus report issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Melanie J. Davies

The 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report also addresses clinical inertia and notes that medication adherence and persistence should be facilitated. All patients should be offered ongoing self-management education and support, Melanie J. Davies, MD, one of the two cochairs of the report-writing committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The report also addresses preferred choices for glucose-lowering medications, largely based on recent findings of large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials. There also is specific guidance on how to manage hyperglycemia in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

“The consensus report focuses on not what an individual’s glycemic target should be or how to individualize goals but really addresses how each patient can achieve their individualized glycemic target,” Dr. Davies said.

Dr. Davies, who is professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England) and an honorary consultant diabetologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust also said that the report looked at taking patient factors and preferences into account but also considered “the ever-increasing complexity around the availability of glucose-lowering agents.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Chantal Mathieu, Dr. John Buse, Dr. Melanie J. Davies, and Dr. William T. Cefalu present the results of the 2018 ADA-EASD Consensus Report during the EASD 2018 meeting.

Practical guide to managing patients

The consensus report, which was simultaneously published in the official journals of the ADA (Diabetes Care 2018 Sep; dci180033) and the EASD (Diabetologia. 2018 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) to coincide with its presentation at the EASD meeting, is much more visual and aims to be more of a practical aid than was the previous position statement from 2015 (Diabetologia. 2015 Mar;58:429-42; Diabetes Care 2015 Jan;38[1]:140-9), on which it was based, Dr. Davies said.

The patient has been placed firmly at the center of the decision cycle, she observed, which starts with assessment of patient characteristics and consideration of their lifestyle, comorbidities, and clinical parameters. Specific factors that may affect the choice of treatment, such as the individualized glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target or side effect profiles of medications, are included, as is working together with the patient to make, continually monitor, and reevaluate a shared decision plan.

In terms of lifestyle, one of the consensus recommendations is that “an individualized program of medical nutritional therapy should be offered to all patients,” with the more specific recommendation that those who are overweight or obese be advised of the health benefits of weight loss and be encouraged to participate in dietary modifications that may include food substitution. Increasing activity is also highly recommended based on long-established evidence that this can help reduce HbA1c level. Recommendations for when to consider bariatric surgery for weight management also are included.
 

 

 

Clarity on treating comorbidities

Previously discussed in June at the ADA’s annual meeting, the consensus report has undergone fine-tuning and multiple revisions. The report was based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the diabetes literature available from 2014 through February 2018. Overall, more than 6,000 randomized trials, reviews, and meta-analyses were considered and distilled down to a list of around 500 papers that were then thoroughly reviewed by an expert panel.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. John Buse

“I guarantee, there’s never been a paper that’s been more peer reviewed,” said John Buse, MD, PhD, the other cochair of the report’s writing committee. A total of 35 named individuals reviewed and provided more than 800 detailed comments among them, which were considered and reflected in the final version.

Dr. Buse is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the diabetes center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s much more clarity now,” added Dr. Davies, referring to the changes made to how patients with comorbidities are managed. If somebody does have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, there is now clear direction on which glucose-lowering therapy should be considered first, and what to do if the HbA1c remains above target.

For example, in patients who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the recommendation is, after metformin, to choose either a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit.

If heart failure or chronic kidney disease coexist, then an SGLT2 inhibitor shown to reduce their progression should be favored, or if contraindicated or not preferred, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit should be given.

The main action, pros and cons of interventions, and the various medications are shown in tables to clearly guide clinicians in the decision-making process, Dr. Buse said.
 

First-line management

The first line recommended glucose-lowering therapy for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes remains metformin, together with comprehensive lifestyle advice, Dr. Buse observed.

“A huge controversy in the [diabetes] community asks, ‘Is metformin the first-line therapy because it’s cheap and was the first oral agent studied and has a long history?’ or is it something that really is based on medical evidence?” Dr. Buse acknowledged. Although combinations of glucose-lowering drugs have been proposed upfront, “the evidence for that is largely from small studies, in limited numbers of sites, such that, for now, we generally recommend starting on a single-agent medication if lifestyle management is not enough to control glucose.”


If there is a need to intensify treatment as the patient’s HbA1c remains above their individualized target, then other drugs may be added to step up the treatment. The consensus report then looks at which drugs might be best to add, based on the need to avoid hypoglycemia, promote weight loss, and/or if cost or availability is a major issue.

If patients need the greater glucose-lowering effects of an injectable medication, a GLP-1 receptor agonist – not insulin – is recommended, Dr. Buse observed. However, for patients with extreme and symptomatic hyperglycemia, insulin is then recommended.

There also is guidance on when to consider oral therapies in conjunction with injectable therapies, with the consensus recommendation stating: Patients who are unable to maintain glycemic targets on basal insulin in combination with oral medication can have treatment intensified with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or prandial insulin.

 

 

The ADA perspective

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. William T. Cefalu

William T. Cefalu, MD, chief scientific, medical and mission officer of the ADA observed that the “ADA fully endorses the ADA/EASD Consensus Report” and had already added a statement on the recommendations into its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018 as part of the organization’s Living Standards Update. This was a change made last year to allow real-time updates of practice recommendations based on new and evolving evidence released in between the annual process of updating the Society’s Standards.

“Much, if not all, of these recommendations from this paper will be incorporated into our Standards,” said Dr. Cefalu. “We applaud the authors of the consensus paper; we think this was an outstanding group, and we really feel that this is a paradigm change in diabetes management,” he added. “Instead of relying on the [HbA1c] number in an algorithm, this puts the patient at the center; patient-related factors, patient preferences, adherence, compliance, and more importantly, the underlying disease state … this really is a comprehensive approach to management.”

The stratification of patients by cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or heart failure is a particularly noteworthy, as is the advice on which agent to choose if weight management is an issue. Finally, there are the considerations of costs of therapy, and what to do if there is the risk of hypoglycemia. “The consensus recommendations and approach to glycemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes presented within the report reflects the current view of the ADA,” Dr. Cefalu confirmed.
 

The EASD perspective

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Chantal Mathieu

“The EASD was again delighted to go into cooperation with our colleagues and friends at the ADA because is it is so important to bring out a consensus on where we need to go in this forest of glucose-lowering therapies,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, vice-president of the EASD.

“The fact that this consensus paper puts the patient front and center, and makes that an integral part of glucose-lowering therapy, and also that lifestyle is being accentuated again, together with education in every patient is crucial,” Dr. Mathieu, who is professor of medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and a coauthor of the report, added.

“At EASD, we also believe that it is very important to bring this consensus paper to life,” she added, which is part of her role as the chair of postgraduate education at the EASD. Two of the EASD’s main remits is to ensure that the results of research and education are brought to the diabetes community at large, she said.

In every figure in the paper there is a highlight to say, “please avoid clinical inertia, reassess and modify treatment if necessary, at least every 3-6 months,” Dr. Mathieu noted during the EASD congress.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. David Matthews

David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and president-elect of the EASD, commented on the 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report after its presentation at the EASD meeting. “The reality is that you’ve got to think extremely hard with your patients about what the balances between risks and benefits are,” Dr. Matthews said. “We encourage you to do this, what you have here is a wonderful handbook to guide you in your decision making.”

Dr. Davies reported receiving personal fees and/or grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Intarcia Therapeutics/Servier, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda.


Dr. Buse disclosed acting as a consultant to and/or receiving research support from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, MannKind, NovaTarg, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and vTv Therapeutics with fees paid to the University of North Carolina. He holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio and Stability Health.

Dr. Mathieu disclosed relationships with (advisory boards, speakers bureaus, and/or research support) from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Intrexon, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MannKind, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Cefalu had no disclosures and Dr. Matthews had no relevant conflicts of interest other than becoming the EASD president-elect during the meeting.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

BERLIN – Providing patient-centered care is at the heart of managing hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and is emphasized in a consensus report issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Melanie J. Davies

The 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report also addresses clinical inertia and notes that medication adherence and persistence should be facilitated. All patients should be offered ongoing self-management education and support, Melanie J. Davies, MD, one of the two cochairs of the report-writing committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The report also addresses preferred choices for glucose-lowering medications, largely based on recent findings of large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials. There also is specific guidance on how to manage hyperglycemia in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

“The consensus report focuses on not what an individual’s glycemic target should be or how to individualize goals but really addresses how each patient can achieve their individualized glycemic target,” Dr. Davies said.

Dr. Davies, who is professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England) and an honorary consultant diabetologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust also said that the report looked at taking patient factors and preferences into account but also considered “the ever-increasing complexity around the availability of glucose-lowering agents.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Chantal Mathieu, Dr. John Buse, Dr. Melanie J. Davies, and Dr. William T. Cefalu present the results of the 2018 ADA-EASD Consensus Report during the EASD 2018 meeting.

Practical guide to managing patients

The consensus report, which was simultaneously published in the official journals of the ADA (Diabetes Care 2018 Sep; dci180033) and the EASD (Diabetologia. 2018 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) to coincide with its presentation at the EASD meeting, is much more visual and aims to be more of a practical aid than was the previous position statement from 2015 (Diabetologia. 2015 Mar;58:429-42; Diabetes Care 2015 Jan;38[1]:140-9), on which it was based, Dr. Davies said.

The patient has been placed firmly at the center of the decision cycle, she observed, which starts with assessment of patient characteristics and consideration of their lifestyle, comorbidities, and clinical parameters. Specific factors that may affect the choice of treatment, such as the individualized glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target or side effect profiles of medications, are included, as is working together with the patient to make, continually monitor, and reevaluate a shared decision plan.

In terms of lifestyle, one of the consensus recommendations is that “an individualized program of medical nutritional therapy should be offered to all patients,” with the more specific recommendation that those who are overweight or obese be advised of the health benefits of weight loss and be encouraged to participate in dietary modifications that may include food substitution. Increasing activity is also highly recommended based on long-established evidence that this can help reduce HbA1c level. Recommendations for when to consider bariatric surgery for weight management also are included.
 

 

 

Clarity on treating comorbidities

Previously discussed in June at the ADA’s annual meeting, the consensus report has undergone fine-tuning and multiple revisions. The report was based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the diabetes literature available from 2014 through February 2018. Overall, more than 6,000 randomized trials, reviews, and meta-analyses were considered and distilled down to a list of around 500 papers that were then thoroughly reviewed by an expert panel.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. John Buse

“I guarantee, there’s never been a paper that’s been more peer reviewed,” said John Buse, MD, PhD, the other cochair of the report’s writing committee. A total of 35 named individuals reviewed and provided more than 800 detailed comments among them, which were considered and reflected in the final version.

Dr. Buse is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the diabetes center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s much more clarity now,” added Dr. Davies, referring to the changes made to how patients with comorbidities are managed. If somebody does have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, there is now clear direction on which glucose-lowering therapy should be considered first, and what to do if the HbA1c remains above target.

For example, in patients who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the recommendation is, after metformin, to choose either a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit.

If heart failure or chronic kidney disease coexist, then an SGLT2 inhibitor shown to reduce their progression should be favored, or if contraindicated or not preferred, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit should be given.

The main action, pros and cons of interventions, and the various medications are shown in tables to clearly guide clinicians in the decision-making process, Dr. Buse said.
 

First-line management

The first line recommended glucose-lowering therapy for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes remains metformin, together with comprehensive lifestyle advice, Dr. Buse observed.

“A huge controversy in the [diabetes] community asks, ‘Is metformin the first-line therapy because it’s cheap and was the first oral agent studied and has a long history?’ or is it something that really is based on medical evidence?” Dr. Buse acknowledged. Although combinations of glucose-lowering drugs have been proposed upfront, “the evidence for that is largely from small studies, in limited numbers of sites, such that, for now, we generally recommend starting on a single-agent medication if lifestyle management is not enough to control glucose.”


If there is a need to intensify treatment as the patient’s HbA1c remains above their individualized target, then other drugs may be added to step up the treatment. The consensus report then looks at which drugs might be best to add, based on the need to avoid hypoglycemia, promote weight loss, and/or if cost or availability is a major issue.

If patients need the greater glucose-lowering effects of an injectable medication, a GLP-1 receptor agonist – not insulin – is recommended, Dr. Buse observed. However, for patients with extreme and symptomatic hyperglycemia, insulin is then recommended.

There also is guidance on when to consider oral therapies in conjunction with injectable therapies, with the consensus recommendation stating: Patients who are unable to maintain glycemic targets on basal insulin in combination with oral medication can have treatment intensified with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or prandial insulin.

 

 

The ADA perspective

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. William T. Cefalu

William T. Cefalu, MD, chief scientific, medical and mission officer of the ADA observed that the “ADA fully endorses the ADA/EASD Consensus Report” and had already added a statement on the recommendations into its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018 as part of the organization’s Living Standards Update. This was a change made last year to allow real-time updates of practice recommendations based on new and evolving evidence released in between the annual process of updating the Society’s Standards.

“Much, if not all, of these recommendations from this paper will be incorporated into our Standards,” said Dr. Cefalu. “We applaud the authors of the consensus paper; we think this was an outstanding group, and we really feel that this is a paradigm change in diabetes management,” he added. “Instead of relying on the [HbA1c] number in an algorithm, this puts the patient at the center; patient-related factors, patient preferences, adherence, compliance, and more importantly, the underlying disease state … this really is a comprehensive approach to management.”

The stratification of patients by cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or heart failure is a particularly noteworthy, as is the advice on which agent to choose if weight management is an issue. Finally, there are the considerations of costs of therapy, and what to do if there is the risk of hypoglycemia. “The consensus recommendations and approach to glycemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes presented within the report reflects the current view of the ADA,” Dr. Cefalu confirmed.
 

The EASD perspective

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Chantal Mathieu

“The EASD was again delighted to go into cooperation with our colleagues and friends at the ADA because is it is so important to bring out a consensus on where we need to go in this forest of glucose-lowering therapies,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, vice-president of the EASD.

“The fact that this consensus paper puts the patient front and center, and makes that an integral part of glucose-lowering therapy, and also that lifestyle is being accentuated again, together with education in every patient is crucial,” Dr. Mathieu, who is professor of medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and a coauthor of the report, added.

“At EASD, we also believe that it is very important to bring this consensus paper to life,” she added, which is part of her role as the chair of postgraduate education at the EASD. Two of the EASD’s main remits is to ensure that the results of research and education are brought to the diabetes community at large, she said.

In every figure in the paper there is a highlight to say, “please avoid clinical inertia, reassess and modify treatment if necessary, at least every 3-6 months,” Dr. Mathieu noted during the EASD congress.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. David Matthews

David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and president-elect of the EASD, commented on the 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report after its presentation at the EASD meeting. “The reality is that you’ve got to think extremely hard with your patients about what the balances between risks and benefits are,” Dr. Matthews said. “We encourage you to do this, what you have here is a wonderful handbook to guide you in your decision making.”

Dr. Davies reported receiving personal fees and/or grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Intarcia Therapeutics/Servier, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda.


Dr. Buse disclosed acting as a consultant to and/or receiving research support from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, MannKind, NovaTarg, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and vTv Therapeutics with fees paid to the University of North Carolina. He holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio and Stability Health.

Dr. Mathieu disclosed relationships with (advisory boards, speakers bureaus, and/or research support) from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Intrexon, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MannKind, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Cefalu had no disclosures and Dr. Matthews had no relevant conflicts of interest other than becoming the EASD president-elect during the meeting.

 

BERLIN – Providing patient-centered care is at the heart of managing hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and is emphasized in a consensus report issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Melanie J. Davies

The 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report also addresses clinical inertia and notes that medication adherence and persistence should be facilitated. All patients should be offered ongoing self-management education and support, Melanie J. Davies, MD, one of the two cochairs of the report-writing committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The report also addresses preferred choices for glucose-lowering medications, largely based on recent findings of large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials. There also is specific guidance on how to manage hyperglycemia in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.

“The consensus report focuses on not what an individual’s glycemic target should be or how to individualize goals but really addresses how each patient can achieve their individualized glycemic target,” Dr. Davies said.

Dr. Davies, who is professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England) and an honorary consultant diabetologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust also said that the report looked at taking patient factors and preferences into account but also considered “the ever-increasing complexity around the availability of glucose-lowering agents.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Chantal Mathieu, Dr. John Buse, Dr. Melanie J. Davies, and Dr. William T. Cefalu present the results of the 2018 ADA-EASD Consensus Report during the EASD 2018 meeting.

Practical guide to managing patients

The consensus report, which was simultaneously published in the official journals of the ADA (Diabetes Care 2018 Sep; dci180033) and the EASD (Diabetologia. 2018 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) to coincide with its presentation at the EASD meeting, is much more visual and aims to be more of a practical aid than was the previous position statement from 2015 (Diabetologia. 2015 Mar;58:429-42; Diabetes Care 2015 Jan;38[1]:140-9), on which it was based, Dr. Davies said.

The patient has been placed firmly at the center of the decision cycle, she observed, which starts with assessment of patient characteristics and consideration of their lifestyle, comorbidities, and clinical parameters. Specific factors that may affect the choice of treatment, such as the individualized glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target or side effect profiles of medications, are included, as is working together with the patient to make, continually monitor, and reevaluate a shared decision plan.

In terms of lifestyle, one of the consensus recommendations is that “an individualized program of medical nutritional therapy should be offered to all patients,” with the more specific recommendation that those who are overweight or obese be advised of the health benefits of weight loss and be encouraged to participate in dietary modifications that may include food substitution. Increasing activity is also highly recommended based on long-established evidence that this can help reduce HbA1c level. Recommendations for when to consider bariatric surgery for weight management also are included.
 

 

 

Clarity on treating comorbidities

Previously discussed in June at the ADA’s annual meeting, the consensus report has undergone fine-tuning and multiple revisions. The report was based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the diabetes literature available from 2014 through February 2018. Overall, more than 6,000 randomized trials, reviews, and meta-analyses were considered and distilled down to a list of around 500 papers that were then thoroughly reviewed by an expert panel.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. John Buse

“I guarantee, there’s never been a paper that’s been more peer reviewed,” said John Buse, MD, PhD, the other cochair of the report’s writing committee. A total of 35 named individuals reviewed and provided more than 800 detailed comments among them, which were considered and reflected in the final version.

Dr. Buse is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the diabetes center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s much more clarity now,” added Dr. Davies, referring to the changes made to how patients with comorbidities are managed. If somebody does have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, there is now clear direction on which glucose-lowering therapy should be considered first, and what to do if the HbA1c remains above target.

For example, in patients who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the recommendation is, after metformin, to choose either a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit.

If heart failure or chronic kidney disease coexist, then an SGLT2 inhibitor shown to reduce their progression should be favored, or if contraindicated or not preferred, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit should be given.

The main action, pros and cons of interventions, and the various medications are shown in tables to clearly guide clinicians in the decision-making process, Dr. Buse said.
 

First-line management

The first line recommended glucose-lowering therapy for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes remains metformin, together with comprehensive lifestyle advice, Dr. Buse observed.

“A huge controversy in the [diabetes] community asks, ‘Is metformin the first-line therapy because it’s cheap and was the first oral agent studied and has a long history?’ or is it something that really is based on medical evidence?” Dr. Buse acknowledged. Although combinations of glucose-lowering drugs have been proposed upfront, “the evidence for that is largely from small studies, in limited numbers of sites, such that, for now, we generally recommend starting on a single-agent medication if lifestyle management is not enough to control glucose.”


If there is a need to intensify treatment as the patient’s HbA1c remains above their individualized target, then other drugs may be added to step up the treatment. The consensus report then looks at which drugs might be best to add, based on the need to avoid hypoglycemia, promote weight loss, and/or if cost or availability is a major issue.

If patients need the greater glucose-lowering effects of an injectable medication, a GLP-1 receptor agonist – not insulin – is recommended, Dr. Buse observed. However, for patients with extreme and symptomatic hyperglycemia, insulin is then recommended.

There also is guidance on when to consider oral therapies in conjunction with injectable therapies, with the consensus recommendation stating: Patients who are unable to maintain glycemic targets on basal insulin in combination with oral medication can have treatment intensified with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or prandial insulin.

 

 

The ADA perspective

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. William T. Cefalu

William T. Cefalu, MD, chief scientific, medical and mission officer of the ADA observed that the “ADA fully endorses the ADA/EASD Consensus Report” and had already added a statement on the recommendations into its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018 as part of the organization’s Living Standards Update. This was a change made last year to allow real-time updates of practice recommendations based on new and evolving evidence released in between the annual process of updating the Society’s Standards.

“Much, if not all, of these recommendations from this paper will be incorporated into our Standards,” said Dr. Cefalu. “We applaud the authors of the consensus paper; we think this was an outstanding group, and we really feel that this is a paradigm change in diabetes management,” he added. “Instead of relying on the [HbA1c] number in an algorithm, this puts the patient at the center; patient-related factors, patient preferences, adherence, compliance, and more importantly, the underlying disease state … this really is a comprehensive approach to management.”

The stratification of patients by cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or heart failure is a particularly noteworthy, as is the advice on which agent to choose if weight management is an issue. Finally, there are the considerations of costs of therapy, and what to do if there is the risk of hypoglycemia. “The consensus recommendations and approach to glycemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes presented within the report reflects the current view of the ADA,” Dr. Cefalu confirmed.
 

The EASD perspective

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. Chantal Mathieu

“The EASD was again delighted to go into cooperation with our colleagues and friends at the ADA because is it is so important to bring out a consensus on where we need to go in this forest of glucose-lowering therapies,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, vice-president of the EASD.

“The fact that this consensus paper puts the patient front and center, and makes that an integral part of glucose-lowering therapy, and also that lifestyle is being accentuated again, together with education in every patient is crucial,” Dr. Mathieu, who is professor of medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and a coauthor of the report, added.

“At EASD, we also believe that it is very important to bring this consensus paper to life,” she added, which is part of her role as the chair of postgraduate education at the EASD. Two of the EASD’s main remits is to ensure that the results of research and education are brought to the diabetes community at large, she said.

In every figure in the paper there is a highlight to say, “please avoid clinical inertia, reassess and modify treatment if necessary, at least every 3-6 months,” Dr. Mathieu noted during the EASD congress.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News
Dr. David Matthews

David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and president-elect of the EASD, commented on the 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report after its presentation at the EASD meeting. “The reality is that you’ve got to think extremely hard with your patients about what the balances between risks and benefits are,” Dr. Matthews said. “We encourage you to do this, what you have here is a wonderful handbook to guide you in your decision making.”

Dr. Davies reported receiving personal fees and/or grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Intarcia Therapeutics/Servier, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda.


Dr. Buse disclosed acting as a consultant to and/or receiving research support from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, MannKind, NovaTarg, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and vTv Therapeutics with fees paid to the University of North Carolina. He holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio and Stability Health.

Dr. Mathieu disclosed relationships with (advisory boards, speakers bureaus, and/or research support) from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Intrexon, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MannKind, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Cefalu had no disclosures and Dr. Matthews had no relevant conflicts of interest other than becoming the EASD president-elect during the meeting.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM EASD 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica