| 1. |
- Andersson, Jonny K, 1972, et al.
(författare)
-
Hand, Wrist, and Forearm Injuries in Male Professional Soccer Players: A Prospective Cohort Study of 558 Team-Seasons From 2001-2002 to 2018-2019
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - : SAGE Publications. - 2325-9671. ; 9:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The literature on upper extremity injuries in professional soccer players is scarce, and further insight into the onset and cause of these injuries as well as potential differences between goalkeepers and outfield players is important. Purpose: To investigate the epidemiology of hand, wrist, and forearm injuries in male professional soccer players between 2001 and 2019. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: Between the 2001-2002 and 2018-2019 seasons, 120 European male soccer teams were followed prospectively for a varying number of seasons (558 team-seasons in total). Time-loss injuries and player-exposures to training sessions and matches were recorded on an individual basis in 6754 unique players. Injury incidence was reported as the number of injuries per 1000 player-hours, and between-group differences were analyzed using Z statistics and rate ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Between-group differences in layoff time were analyzed. Results: In total, 25,462 injuries were recorded, with 238 (0.9%) of these affecting the hand (71.4%; n = 170), wrist (16.8%; n = 40), and forearm (11.8%; n = 28), producing an incidence of 0.065 injuries per 1000 hours. A majority of the injuries were traumatic with an acute onset (98.7%; n = 235). Fractures were the most common injuries recorded (58.8%; n = 140), often involving the metacarpal bones (25.2%; n = 60) and phalanges (10.1%; n = 24). The injury incidence was significantly higher for goalkeepers (115 injuries; 0.265 per 1000 hours) compared with outfield players (123 injuries; 0.038 per 1000 hours) (RR, 7.0 [95% CI, 5.4-9.0]). Goalkeepers also had a significantly longer mean layoff time than outfield players (23 +/- 27 vs 15 +/- 27 days; P = .016). Conclusion: Injuries to the hand, wrist, and forearm constituted less than 1% of all time-loss injuries in male professional soccer players. Fractures were most common and constituted more than half of all injuries. Goalkeepers had a 7-fold higher incidence and an over 1-week longer mean layoff time compared with outfield players.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gavali, Hamid, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome of Radical Surgical Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Graft and Endograft Infections Comparing Extra-anatomic Bypass with In Situ Reconstruction : A Nationwide Multicentre Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Saunders Elsevier. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 62:6, s. 918-926
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Abdominal aortic graft and endograft infection (AGI) is primarily treated by resection of the infected graft and restoration of distal perfusion through extra-anatomic bypass (EAB) or in situ reconstruction/repair (ISR). The aim of this study was to compare these surgical strategies in a nationwide multicentre retrospective cohort study.Methods: The Swedish Vascular Registry (Swedvasc) was used to identify surgically treated abdominal AGIs in Sweden between January 1995 and May 2017. The primary aim was to compare short and long term survival, as well as complications for EAB and ISR.Results: Some 126 radically surgically treated AGI patients were identified – 102 graft infections and 24 endograft infections – treated by EAB: 71 and ISR: 55 (23 neo-aorto-iliac systems, NAISs). No differences in early 30 day (EAB 81.7% vs. ISR 76.4%, p =.46), or long term five year survival (48.2% vs. 49.9%, p =.87) were identified. There was no survival difference comparing NAIS to other ISR strategies. The frequency of recurrent graft infection during follow up was similar: EAB 20.3% vs. ISR 17.0% (p =.56). Survival and re-infection rates of the new conduit did not differ between NAIS and other ISR strategies. Age ≥ 75 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.0, confidence interval [CI] 1.1 – 14.8), coronary artery disease (OR 4.2, CI 1.2 – 15.1) and post-operative circulatory complications (OR 5.2, CI 1.2 – 22.5) were associated with early death. Prolonged antimicrobial therapy (> 3 months) was associated with reduced long term mortality (HR 0.3, CI 0.1 – 0.9).Conclusion: In this nationwide multicentre study comparing outcomes of radically treated AGI, no differences in survival or re-infection rate could be identified comparing EAB and ISR.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gavali, Hamid, et al.
(författare)
-
Semi-Conservative Treatment Versus Radical Surgery in Abdominal Aortic Graft and Endograft Infections
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 66:3, s. 397-406
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Abdominal aortic graft and endograft infections (AGIs) are rare complications following aortic surgery. Radical surgery (RS) with resection of the infected graft and reconstruction with extra-anatomical bypass or in situ reconstruction is the preferred therapy. For patients unfit for RS, a semi-conservative (SC), graft preserving strategy is possible. This paper aimed to compare survival and infection outcomes between RS and SC treatment for AGI in a nationwide cohort.Methods: Patients with abdominal AGI related surgery in Sweden between January 1995 and May 2017 were identified. The Management of Aortic Graft Infection Collaboration (MAGIC) criteria were used for the definition of AGI. Multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with mortality.Results: One hundred and sixty-nine patients with surgically treated abdominal AGI were identified, comprising 43 SC (14 endografts; 53% with a graft enteric fistula [GEF] in total) and 126 RS (26 endografts; 50% with a GEF in total). The SC cohort was older and had a higher frequency of cardiac comorbidities. There was a non-significant trend towards lower Kaplan -Meier estimated five year survival for SC vs. RS (30.2% vs. 48.4%; p = .066). A non-significant trend was identified towards worse Kaplan -Meier estimated five year survival for SC patients with a GEF vs. without a GEF (21.7% vs. 40.1%; p = .097). There were significantly more recurrent graft infections comparing SC with RS (45.4% vs. 19.3%; p < .001). In a Cox regression model adjusting for confounders, there was no difference in five year survival comparing SC vs. RS (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6 -1.5).Conclusion: In this national AGI cohort, there was no mortality difference comparing SC and RS for AGI when adjusting for comorbidities. Presence of GEF probably negatively impacts survival outcomes of SC patients. Rates of recurrent infection remain high for SC treated patients.
|
|
