Return to Sports Following Sports-Related Concussion in Collision Sports: An Expert Consensus Statement Using the Modified Delphi Technique

PURPOSE

To perform a Delphi consensus for return to sports (RTS) following sports-related concussion (SRC).

METHODS

Open-ended questions in rounds 1 and 2 were answered. The results of the first 2 rounds were used to develop a Likert-style questionnaire for round 3. If agreement at round 3 was ≤80% for an item, if panel members were outside consensus or there were >30% neither agree/disagree responses, the results were carried forward into round 4. The level of agreement and consensus was defined as 90%.

RESULTS

Individualized graduated RTS protocols should be used. A normal clinical, ocular and balance examination with no more headaches, and asymptomatic exertional test allows RTS. Earlier RTS can be considered if athletes are symptom free. The Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 and vestibular and ocular motor screening are recognized as useful tools to assist in decision-making. Ultimately RTS is a clinical decision. Baseline assessments should be performed at both collegiate and professional level and a combination of neurocognitive and clinical tests should be used. A specific number of recurrent concussions for season-or career-ending decisions could not be determined but will affect decision making for RTS.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was achieved for 10 of the 25 RTS criteria: early RTS can be considered earlier than 48 to 72 hours if athletes are completely symptom-free with no headaches, a normal clinical, ocular and balance examination. A graduated RTS should be used but should be individualized. Only 2 of the 9 assessment tools were considered to be useful: Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 and vestibular and ocular motor screening. RTS is mainly a clinical decision. Only 31% of the baseline assessment items achieved consensus: baseline assessments should be performed at collegiate and professional levels using a combination of neurocognitive and clinical tests. The panel disagreed on the number of recurrent concussions that should be season- or career-ending.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert Opinion.

On-Field and Pitch-Side (Sideline) Assessment of Sports Concussion in Collision Sports: An Expert Consensus Statement Using the Modified Delphi Technique

PURPOSE

To perform a Delphi consensus for on-field and pitch-side assessment of sports-related concussion (SRC).

METHODS

Open-ended questions in rounds 1 and 2 were answered. The results of the first 2 rounds were used to develop a Likert-style questionnaire for round 3. If agreement at round 3 was ≤80% for an item, if panel members were outside consensus, or there were >30% neither agree/disagree responses, the results were carried forward into round 4. The level of agreement and consensus was defined as 90%.

RESULTS

Loss of consciousness (LOC) or suspected LOC, motor incoordination/ataxia, balance disturbance, confusion/disorientation, memory disturbance/amnesia, blurred vision/light sensitivity, irritability, slurred speech, slow reaction time, lying motionless, dizziness, headaches/pressure in the head, falling to the ground with no protective action, slow to get up after a hit, dazed look, and posturing/seizures were clinical signs of SRC and indicate removal from play. Video assessment is helpful but should not replace clinical judgment. LOC/unresponsiveness, signs of cervical spine injury, suspicion of other fractures (skull/maxillo-facial), seizures, Glasgow Coma Scale score <14 and abnormal neurologic examination findings are indications for hospitalization. Return to play should only be considered when no clinical signs of SRC are present. Every suspected concussion should be referred to an experienced physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was achieved for 85% of the clinical signs indicating concussion. On-field and pitch-side assessment should include the observation of the mechanism, a clinical examination, and cervical spine assessment. Of the 19 signs and red flags requiring removal from play, consensus was reached for 74%. Normal clinical examination and HIA with no signs of concussion allow return to play. Video assessment should be mandatory for professional games but should not replace clinical decision-making. Sports Concussion Assessment Tool, Glasgow Coma Scale, vestibular/ocular motor screening, Head Injury Assessment Criteria 1, and Maddocks questions are useful tools. Guidelines are helpful for non-health professionals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Blood flow restriction training in South Africa - a panel discussion

Background

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training uses a cuff to partially occlude venous blood flow and improve musculoskeletal training outcomes. Over the past 25 years, numerous studies have demonstrated its relative safety and efficacy.

Objectives

Blood flow restriction training is under review by the Health Professions Council of South Africa due to safety and ethical concerns. The objective of this roundtable discussion is to gain better insight into the current use and perception of blood flow restriction training in South Africa.

Formation of panel

The expert panel had experience with the use of BFR training and included one representative from each of the following professions, namely, sports medicine, physiotherapy and biokinetics.

Discussion

The panellists provided their unique perspectives on BFR training, whilst reaching a relative consensus on its safety, screening, efficacy, and appropriate use. Agreement on appropriate loading and occlusion pressure protocols during different phases of rehabilitation was less clear.

Conclusion

Although BFR is a safe and effective modality, the development of evidence-based protocols among different health professionals in South Africa is required to ensure good clinical practice.