Romeo, Anthony A.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is the gold standard treatment for ACL tears to allow baseball players to return to sport (RTS). The optimal graft type and femoral tunnel drilling technique are currently unknown. Hypothesis: There is a high rate of RTS in professional baseball players after ACLR, with no significant difference in RTS rates or performance between cases and controls or between graft types or femoral drilling techniques. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All professional baseball players who underwent ACLR between 2010 and 2015 were included. Demographic and performance data (pre- and postoperative) for each player were recorded. Performance metrics were then compared between cases and matched controls. Results: A total of 124 players (mean age, 23.7 ± 4.1 years; 83% minor league players) underwent ACLR. Of these, 80% returned to sport (73% to the same or higher level) at a mean 310 ± 109 days overall and 333 ± 126 days at the same or higher level. The most common graft type was an ipsilateral bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autograft (n = 87; 70%). A total of 91 players underwent concomitant meniscal debridement or repair. No significant difference in any of the primary performance metrics existed from before to after ACLR. Compared with matched controls, no significant difference existed in RTS rates or any performance metrics after ACLR. No significant difference existed in RTS rates or primary performance outcome measures between graft types or femoral drilling techniques. Conclusion: The RTS rate for professional baseball players after ACLR was 80%. No significant difference in performance metrics existed between BTB and hamstring autografts or between femoral drilling techniques. Furthermore, no significant difference in performance or RTS rates existed between cases and matched controls. Femoral drilling technique and graft type did not affect performance and RTS rates in professional baseball players after ACLR.

Background Although the use of rotator interval closure is frequently advocated as a useful supplement to shoulder instability repairs, the addition of a rotator interval closure after arthroscopic instability repair has not been fully investigated. Purpose The objective of this study was to investigate whether a rotator interval closure improves glenohumeral stability in an anterior and posterior instability shoulder model. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Fourteen fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulder specimens were dissected free of soft tissues, leaving the rotator cuff intact with simulated cuff loading. All specimens were mounted in a custom testing apparatus using infrared sensors to document glenohumeral translation and rotation. The specimens were then tested for stability in the following order: vented/subluxated state, after arthroscopic anterior (Group 1; 7 specimens) or posterior (Group 2; 7 specimens) instability repair with suture anchors, and then after rotator interval closure. For each of the 3 testing conditions, the following were measured: (1) external and internal rotation at neutral, (2) external and internal rotation at 90° of abduction, (3) posterior and anterior translation at neutral rotation (15 N and 25 N), (4) anterior translation at 90° of abduction and external rotation (Group 1; 15 N and 25 N), (5) posterior translation at 90° of flexion and internal rotation (Group 2; 15 N and 25 N), and (6) sulcus testing in neutral (7.5 N). Results Posterior stability was only improved after anchor capsulolabral repair (8.0 to 5.0 mm; P = .017, 25 N), but there was no improvement after rotator interval closure (5.0 to 4.6 mm; P = .453). However, anterior stability was improved after capsulolabral repair (8.6 to 4.0 mm; P = .016, 25 N) and also improved further by rotator interval closure (4.0 to 2.4 mm; P = .007). The mean loss of external rotation was significantly increased by the addition of the rotator interval closure in both neutral and abducted glenohumeral positions, with a mean external rotation loss of 28° in neutral ( P = .013). The addition of a rotator interval closure did not improve sulcus stability ( P = .4). Conclusion The addition of an arthroscopic rotator interval closure after posterior capsulolabral repair did not improve posterior stability; however, anterior stability was improved further after a rotator interval closure. Inferior stability was not improved. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure significantly decreased external rotation at both neutral and abducted arm positions. Clinical Relevance Arthroscopic closure may be beneficial in certain cases of anterior shoulder instability; however, posterior instability was not improved. Predictable losses of external rotation after rotator interval closure are of concern.