RRRoach P. Roach

Roach P. Roach

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Roach P. Roach has a total of 42 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:

  • Kevin A. Hao

    College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    4 shared publications
  • Kevin W. Farmer

    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    4 shared publications
  • Kevin W. Farmer

    Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    4 shared publications
  • Marissa Pazik

    Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    4 shared publications
  • Bankole O. Olowofela

    College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    3 shared publications
  • David A. Freeman

    College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

    3 shared publications

Latest Publications

  • Is Mental Health Status Impacted by Daytime Sleepiness in Junior Collegiate Student-Athletes? A Retrospective Study of Preparticipation Physical Exams

    by Marissa Pazik, Tyler LaMonica, Kevin W. Farmer, Ryan P. Roach, Sarah Chrabaszcz, Joshua Altman, Nathan Tipper, MaryBeth Horodyski

    Context: Lack of sleep in collegiate student-athletes may lead to decreased athletic and academic performance and longer injury recovery time. Recent research has found a link between decreased mental health status and poor sleep habits in collegiate student-athletes. Purpose: The objective of the current study was to investigate the relationship between mental health scores measured via the General Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) scale and daytime sleep scores measured via the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) in junior college student-athletes. Results: A total of 204 participants (115 females, 89 males) with a mean age of 19.2 ± 0.8 were included in final analysis. Average GAD-7 scores were 1.05 ± 2.7, and average ESS scores were 6.04 ± 3.5. Females scored significantly higher (p < .01) on the GAD-7 questionnaire than males, but no significant difference was found between sexes on the ESS questionnaire (p = .67). A weak positive correlation was found between GAD-7 and ESS scores (r = .23, p < .001). Conclusions: Female junior collegiate student-athletes had higher anxiety scores on the GAD-7 than their male counterparts. Daytime sleepiness measured did not differ based on sex. A weak positive relationship existed between junior collegiate student-athletes anxiety and daytime sleepiness scores.

  • Is the “sling effect” of the conjoint tendon in Latarjet procedures real? A systematic review and descriptive synthesis of controlled laboratory and comparative clinical studies

    by Kevin A. Hao, Timothy R. Buchanan, Victoria E. Bindi, Jonathon J. Dang, Arman Tabarestani, Justin Leal, Kevin W. Farmer, Ryan P. Roach, Xinning Li, Bradley S. Schoch, et al.


  • Open Access

    Comparison of Pain Scores and Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair and Concomitant Capsular Repair or Plication Versus No Closure

    by Victoria E. Bindi, Kevin A. Hao, David A. Freeman, Bankole O. Olowofela, Michael W. Moser, Kevin W. Farmer, Marissa Pazik, Ryan P. Roach

    Background: The need for capsular closure during arthroscopic hip labral repair is debated. Purpose: To compare pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure. Study Design: Cohort study. Methods: Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure at up to 2 years postoperatively and with stratification by age and sex. Patients with lateral center-edge angle <20°, a history of instability, a history of prior arthroscopic surgery in the ipsilateral hip, or a history of labral debridement only were excluded. Subanalysis was performed between patients undergoing no capsular closure who were propensity score matched 1:1 with patients undergoing repair or plication based on age, sex, and preoperative Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). We compared patients who underwent T-capsulotomy with concomitant capsular closure matched 1:5 with patients who underwent an interportal capsulotomy with concomitant capsular repair based on age, sex, and preoperative MHHS. Results: Patients undergoing capsular closure (n = 1069), compared with the no-closure group (n = 230), were more often female (68.6% vs 53.0%, respectively; P < .001), were younger (36.4 ± 13.3 vs 47.9 ± 14.7 years; P < .001), and had superior MHHS scores at 2 years postoperatively (85.8 ± 14.5 vs 81.8 ± 18.4, respectively; P = .020). In the matched analysis, no difference was found in outcome measures between patients in the capsular closure group (n = 215) and the no-closure group (n = 215) at any follow-up timepoint. No significant difference was seen between the 2 closure techniques at any follow-up timepoint. Patients with closure of the capsule achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate as those without closure (MCID, 50.3% vs 44.9%, P = .288; PASS, 56.8% vs 51.1%, P = .287, respectively). Patients with T-capsulotomy achieved the MCID and the PASS for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate compared with those with interportal capsulotomy (MCID, 50.1% vs 44.9%, P = .531; PASS, 65.7% vs 61.2%, P = .518, respectively). Conclusion: When sex, age, and preoperative MHHS were controlled, capsular closure and no capsular closure after arthroscopic hip labral repair were associated with similar pain and functional outcomes for patients up to 2 years postoperatively.


  • Open Access

    Correction: Pain scores and functional outcomes of patients with shoulder labral repair using all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors

    by David A. Freeman, Kevin A. Hao, Keegan M. Hones, Bankole O. Olowofela, Ryan Parrish, Derek Damrow, Joseph J. King, Kevin W. Farmer, Marissa Pazik, Ryan P. Roach


  • Pain scores and functional outcomes of patients with shoulder labral repair using all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors

    by David A. Freeman, Kevin A. Hao, Keegan M. Hones, Bankole O. Olowofela, Ryan Parrish, Derek Damrow, Joseph J. King, Kevin W. Farmer, Marissa Pazik, Roach P. Roach

    Hypothesis/purpose The purpose of this study was to compare PROMs in patients undergoing anterior glenoid labral repair using all-suture versus conventional anchors. We hypothesized PROMs would be similar between groups. Methods We performed a retrospective review of the Arthrex Global Surgical Outcomes System (SOS) database, querying patients who underwent arthroscopic glenoid labral repair between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2020. Patients aged 18–100, who had isolated glenoid labrum repair with at least 12-month follow-up were included. The visual analog pain scale (VAS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Veteran’s RAND 12-items health survey, single assessment numeric evaluation and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) were compared preoperatively, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively in patients who received all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors in the setting of anterior glenoid labrum repair. Our primary aim was comparison of PROMs between patients receiving all-suture versus conventional suture anchors. Secondarily, a sub-analysis was performed comparing outcomes based on anchor utilization for patients with noted anterior instability. Results We evaluated 566 patients, 54 patients receiving all-suture anchors and 512 patients receiving conventional anchors. At two-year follow-up there was no significant difference between the two groups in PROMs. In a sub-analysis of isolated anterior labrum repair, there was an improvement in ASES (P = 0.034) and VAS (P = 0.039) with the all-suture anchor at two-year follow-up. Conclusions All-suture anchors provide similar or superior pain and functional outcome scores up to 2 years postoperatively compared to conventional anchors. Clinical relevance As all-suture anchors gain popularity among surgeons, this is the largest scale study to date validating their use in the setting of glenoid labrum repair. Institutional Review Board (IRB): IRB202102550.


  • Diversity Within the Field of Orthopedic Sports Medicine

    by Justin Leal, Alexis L. Clifford, Albert T. Anastasio, Michael Dymtruk, Ryan P. Roach

    Background: Orthopedic surgery is among the least diverse specialties in medicine. This systematic review analyzes gender, racial, and ethnic diversity within orthopedic sports medicine and aims to raise awareness and provide guidance for future strategies that support underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMs) and women in joining the orthopedic sports medicine workforce. We hypothesize that at all tiers of training, there is a lack of gender, racial, and ethnic parity in academic rank, leadership positions, and research productivity. Methods: A search of all published literature in the English language from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, between January 1, 2010, and August 18, 2023, was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included studies presented demographics regarding diversity within orthopedic sports medicine and provided trends in applicants, attendings, leadership, and/or research. Bias was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) study checklist. Results: Thirteen studies published between 2016 and 2023 with STROBE scores 15.5 to 21.5 (70.5% to 97.7%) met criteria, and pertinent data were extracted. The percent of female orthopedic sports medicine surgeons from 2010 to 2019 increased from 5% (n = 138) to 6% (n = 206) with a compound annual growth rate of 0.2% (r2 = 0.97; p < 0.001). Females and URMs are underrepresented at the highest levels of orthopedic sports medicine leadership including department chair (female: 0% [n = 0]), division chief (female: 4% [n = 4]; URM: 3% [n = 3]), and fellowship director (female: 3.3% [n = 3]; URM: 4.4% [n = 4]). Studies from prominent orthopedic sports medicine journals (American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and Sports Health) show a 12.1% increase in female involvement in orthopedic sports medicine research from 1972 to 2018; however, this increase captures 59.3% (n = 2,953) females with degrees other than an MD. Conclusions: Although increasingly more females and underrepresented minorities are joining orthopedic sports medicine, the rate of diversification remains slow and current involvement in leadership and research is minimal. Targeted efforts aimed at increasing research opportunities and inspiring interest through mentorship for URMs and females in orthopedics is essential to drive change toward parity. Level of Evidence: Level IV. Systematic Review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


  • Staged Repair of Simultaneous Bilateral Proximal Hamstring Rupture and 2 Year Outcome

    by Bankole O. Olowofela, Ryan Parrish, Giorgio Zeppieri, Kevin W. Farmer, Marissa Pazik, Ryan P. Roach

    Case: A 53-year-old man presented with simultaneous, bilateral proximal hamstring ruptures. He underwent open, staged surgical repair of the proximal hamstrings, followed by a modified course of rehabilitation. At 2-year follow-up, the patient reports excellent outcomes. Conclusion: Simultaneous, bilateral, 3-tendon rupture of the proximal hamstrings is a rare lower extremity injury. Surgical treatment of such injuries presents several unique challenges. Staged surgical repair is an effective treatment option.

  • Open Access

    Outcomes of Biceps Tenodesis Variations With Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair: A Multicenter Database Analysis

    by David P. Hagan, Kevin A. Hao, Joseph J. King, Ramesh C. Srinivasan, Thomas W. Wright, Michael W. Moser, Kevin W. Farmer, Jonathan O. Wright, Marissa Pazik, Ryan P. Roach

    Background: Studies to date comparing biceps tenodesis methods in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes. Purpose: To compare biceps tenodesis constructs, locations, and techniques in patients who underwent RCR using a large multicenter database. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A global outcome database was queried for patients with medium- and large-sized tears who underwent biceps tenodesis with RCR between 2015 and 2021. Patients ≥18 years of age with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores were compared at 1 and 2 years of follow-up based on construct (anchor, screw, or suture), location (subpectoral, suprapectoral, or top of groove), and technique (inlay or onlay). Nonparametric hypothesis testing was used to compare continuous outcomes at each time point. The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups were compared between groups using chi-square tests. Results: A total of 1903 unique shoulder entries were analyzed. Improvement in VR-12 Mental score favored anchor and suture fixations at 1 year of follow-up ( P = .042) and the onlay tenodesis technique at 2 years of follow-up ( P = .029). No additional tenodesis comparisons demonstrated statistical significance. The proportion of patients with improvement exceeding the MCID did not differ based on tenodesis methods for any outcome score assessed at the 1- or 2-year follow-up. Conclusion: Biceps tenodesis with concomitant RCR led to improved outcomes regardless of tenodesis fixation construct, location, or technique. A clear optimal tenodesis method with RCR remains to be determined. Surgeon preference and experience with various tenodesis methods as well as patient clinical presentation should continue to guide surgical decision-making.