Intrinsic factors associated with medial tibial stress syndrome in athletes: A large case-control study

Background. Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) is the most common lower-leg injury in athletes, and is thought to be caused by bony overload. To prevent MTSS, both pathophysiological and aetiological factors specific to MTSS need to be identified. The intrinsic risk factors that contribute to the development of MTSS are still uncertain.Objective. To determine the intrinsic risk factors of MTSS by sampling a large population of athletic MTSS patients and controls.Methods. Athletes with MTSS and control subjects were medically examined in terms of range of motion of the leg joints (hip abduction, adduction, internal and external range of motion; ankle plantar and dorsal flexion; hallux extension and flexion; subtalar inversion and eversion), measures of over-pronation and maximal calf girth.Results. Ninety-seven subjects agreed to participate in the study: 48 MTSS patients and 49 active controls. The following variables were considered: gender, age, body mass index (BMI), hip abduction, hip adduction, internal and external hip range of rotation, ankle plantar and dorsal flexion, hallux flexion and extension, subtalar inversion and eversion, maximal calf girth, standing foot angle and navicular drop test. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, hip abduction (odds ratio (OR) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 - 0.94), ankle plantar flexion (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61 - 0.87) and subtalar inversion (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.10 - 1.41) were significantly associated with MTSS. The Nagelkerke R2 for this model was 0.76, indicating that 76% of the variance in the presence of MTSS could be explained by these variables.Conclusion. Decreased hip abduction, decreased ankle plantar flexion and an increased subtalar inversion could be considered risk factors for MTSS

An Overview of the Management of Flexor Tendon Injuries

Flexor tendon injuries still remain a challenging condition to manage to ensure optimal outcome for the patient. Since the first flexor tendon repair was described by Kirchmayr in 1917, several approaches to flexor tendon injury have enabled successful repairs rates of 70-90%. Primary surgical repair results in better functional outcome compared to secondary repair or tendon graft surgery. Flexor tendon injury repair has been extensively researched and the literature demonstrates successful repair requires minimal gapping at the repair site or interference with tendon vascularity, secure suture knots, smooth junction of tendon end and having sufficient strength for healing. However, the exact surgical approach to achieve success being currently used among surgeons is still controversial. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the results of studies demonstrating the current knowledge regarding the optimal approach for flexor tendon repair. Post-operative rehabilitation for flexor tendon surgery is another area, which has caused extensive debate in hand surgery. The trend to more active mobilisation protocols seems to be favoured but further study in this area is needed to find the protocol, which achieves function and gliding but avoids rupture of the tendons. Lastly despite success following surgery complications commonly still occur post surgery, including adhesion formation, tendon rupture and stiffness of the joints. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the appropriate management of these difficulties post surgery. New techniques in management of flexor tendon will also be discussed including external laser devices, addition of growth factors and cytokines

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration

The REMARK “elaboration and explanation” guideline, by Doug Altman and colleagues, provides a detailed reference for authors on important issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker prognostic studies

Is implicit motor learning preserved after stroke? A systematic review with meta-analysis

© 2016 Kal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients' automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved poststroke, evidence for this claim has not been systematically analysed yet. Therefore, we systematically reviewed whether implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, and whether patients benefit more from implicit than from explicit motor learning. We comprehensively searched conventional (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, PEDro, PsycINFO) and grey literature databases (BIOSIS, Web of Science, OpenGrey, British Library, trial registries) for relevant reports. Two independent reviewers screened reports, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. Overall, we included 20 out of the 2177 identified reports that allow for a succinct evaluation of implicit motor learning. Of these, only 1 study investigated learning on a relatively complex, whole-body (balance board) task. All 19 other studies concerned variants of the serial-reaction time paradigm, with most of these focusing on learning with the unaffected hand (N = 13) rather than the affected hand or both hands (both: N = 4). Four of the 20 studies compared explicit and implicit motor learning post-stroke. Meta-analyses suggest that patients with stroke can learn implicitly with their unaffected side (mean difference (MD) = 69 ms, 95% CI[45.1, 92.9], p < .00001), but not with their affected side (standardized MD = -.11, 95% CI[-.45, .25], p = .56). Finally, implicit motor learning seemed equally effective as explicit motor learning post-stroke (SMD = -.54, 95% CI[-1.37, .29], p = .20). However, overall, the high risk of bias, small samples, and limited clinical relevance of most studies make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effect of implicit motor learning strategies post-stroke. High quality studies with larger samples are warranted to test implicit motor learning in clinically relevant contexts