Camp, Christopher

Background: Although pitch count and rest guidelines have been promoted for youth and adolescent baseball players for nearly 2 decades, compliance with guidelines remains poorly understood. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of compliance with Major League Baseball (MLB) Pitch Smart guidelines as well as the association between compliance and range of motion (ROM), strength, velocity, injury, and pitcher utilization. It was hypothesized that pitchers in violation of current recommendations would have increased strength, velocity, and injury. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter study of 115 high school pitchers throughout the United States. Pitchers were surveyed about their compliance with current off-season, rest-related guidelines, and history of injury. During the preseason, pitchers underwent standardized physical examinations, and pitch velocity was measured. Pitch counts were collected during the baseball season that followed. Dynamometer strength testing of shoulder forward flexion, and external rotation as well as grip strength was recorded. We compared pitchers who were compliant with recommendations with those who were noncompliant using Student t and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Based on preseason data, 84% of pitchers had violated current Pitch Smart guidelines. During the season, 14% had at least 1 violation of the Pitch Smart guidelines. Across both the preseason survey and in-season pitch counts, 89% of players had at least 1 violation of the Pitch Smart guidelines. While there were no significant differences in ROM or strength, the noncompliant group had higher maximum pitch velocity than the compliant group (74 ± 8 vs 69 ± 5 mph [119 ± 13 vs 111 ± 8 kph], respectively; P = .009). Players’ self-reported velocity differed significantly from the direct measurement, for both peak velocity (80 ± 6 vs 73 ± 8 mph [129 ± 9 vs 117 ± 13 kph], respectively; P < .001) and mean velocity (73 ± 8 vs 53 ± 27 mph [117 ± 13 vs 85 ± 43 kph], respectively; P < .001). Conclusion: Most high school pitchers were not fully compliant with current Pitch Smart guidelines, and they tended to overestimate their peak velocity by 7 mph (11 kph). Pitchers who threw with greater velocity were at higher risk for violating Pitch Smart recommendations.

Background: Distal biceps tendon ruptures commonly present in the middle-aged population resulting in deficits of strength and endurance. Operative management has shown improved functional outcome; however, there is not a clear consensus on an ideal surgical method. Indications: Distal biceps tendon repair is indicated for patients with clinical evidence and supporting magnetic resonance imaging confirmation of complete or partial rupture of the biceps tendon. Ideally, surgery is performed within 1 to 2 weeks of the injury to minimize the amount of scar tissue that is formed and the severity of the tendon retraction. Technique Description: A single incision is created on the volar surface of the forearm approximately 15 mm distal to the main flexor crease. After dissection to and retrieval of the biceps tendon, a #2 FiberTag stitch is placed distally and secured in a standard looped, locking fashion. An anchor is then placed in the most proximal aspect of the radial tuberosity and preliminarily placed around the tendon. An all-suture intramedullary cortical button is then placed in the distal aspect of the radial tuberosity. The FiberTag sutures are then shuttled through the button and tightened to anatomically reduce the distal biceps. The sutures on the proximal anchor are then used as supplemental fixation. Results: An anterior, single incision technique provides exposure necessary for dual anchor fixation and anatomic restoration of the distal biceps tendon. Utilizing this approach, patients are found to have improved flexion and pronation at 1 year, lower rates of heterotopic ossification, and lower rates of reoperation. Conclusion: Distal biceps tendon repair through an anterior, single incision provides excellent exposure for surgical repair. Utilizing a dual anchor technique, the distal button allows for anatomic fixation while the proximal suture anchor provides secondary fixation and increases the bone-tendon interface. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Abstract Elbow injuries are a significant and increasing issue in baseball. Elbow injuries account for 16% of all injuries sustained at the professional level and collegiate level. Because of the continued rise in injury rates, loss of performance value, and medical burden, sports medicine clinicians have attempted to research the causes underlying this injury epidemic in an attempt to help mitigate baseball elbow injuries. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) is the most researched clinical metric related to elbow injuries in baseball and has the greatest consensus as a viable prognostic factor specifically for medial elbow injury. Shoulder ROM is easy to measure, can be modified through stretching and manual therapy interventions, and can be easily assessed during preseason screening throughout all baseball levels. Despite a large number of studies and the widespread use of shoulder ROM in injury risk screening, current findings are unclear as to whether there is a true cause‐effect relation with baseball elbow injuries. We argue that the conflicting findings revolving around the value of shoulder ROM measurements associated with baseball elbow injuries are the result of 4 gaps in the research approaches implemented to date: ambiguous research questions, mixed study populations, statistical models used, and shoulder ROM methodology. Specifically, there is a mismatch of methods, statistical models, and conclusions such as (1) investigating the association (i.e., correlation) between shoulder ROM measurements and injury and (2) investigating the cause‐effect relation of shoulder ROM to baseball injuries. The purpose of this article is to detail the required scientific steps to evaluate whether preseason shoulder ROM is a potential causal factor for pitching elbow injury. We also provide recommendations to allow for future causal inferences to be made between shoulder ROM and elbow injury. This information will ultimately assist in informing clinical models of care and decision making for baseball throwers.

Background: Loss of upper and lower extremity range of motion (ROM) is a significant risk factor for injuries in professional baseball players. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine changes in ROM in professional baseball players over the course of a single season and their careers. We hypothesized that pitchers and position players would lose ROM, specifically total shoulder motion (total ROM [TROM]) and hip internal rotation (IR), over the course of a season and their careers. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Upper and lower extremity ROM measurements were recorded during pre-, mid-, and postseason on all professional baseball players for a single organization between 2011 and 2018. ROM measurements were compared for pitchers and position players over the course of the season and their careers. Also, ROM measurements over the pre-, mid-, and postseason were compared between pitchers and position players. Results: A total of 166 professional baseball players (98 pitchers, 68 position players) were included. Pitcher hip external rotation (ER; P < .001), IR ( P = .010), and TROM ( P < .001) for lead and trail legs decreased over the course of the season. Pitcher shoulder ER ( P = .005), TROM ( P = .042), and horizontal adduction ( P < .001) significantly increased over the course of the season. Position player shoulder flexion ( P = .046), hip ER ( P < .001, lead leg; P < .001, trail leg), and hip TROM ( P = .001; P = .002) decreased over the course of the season. Position player shoulder ER ( P = .031) and humeral adduction ( P < .001) significantly increased over the course of the season. Over the course of pitchers’ careers, there was decreased shoulder IR ( P = .014), increased shoulder horizontal adduction ( P < .001), and hip IR ( P = .042) and hip TROM ( P = .027) for the lead leg. Position players experienced loss of hip TROM ( P = .010, lead leg; P = .018, trail leg) over the course of their careers. Pitchers started with and maintained more shoulder ER and gained more shoulder TROM over a season as compared with position players. Conclusion: Pitchers and position players saw overall decreases in hip ROM but increases in shoulder ROM over the course of the season and career.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine failure rates, functional outcomes, and risk factors for failure after revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery in high‐risk adolescent athletes. Methods Adolescent athletes who underwent primary anterior shoulder stabilization were reviewed. Patients undergoing subsequent revision stabilization surgery were identified and analyzed. Failure rates after revision surgery were assessed by Kaplan‐Meier analysis. Failure was defined as recurrent instability requiring reoperation. Functional outcomes included the Marx activity score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; and University of California, Los Angeles score. The characteristics of patients who required reoperation for recurrent instability after revision surgery were compared with those of patients who required only a single revision to identify potential risk factors for failure. Results Of 90 patients who underwent primary anterior stabilization surgery, 15 (17%) had failure and underwent revision surgery (mean age, 16.6 years; age range, 14 to 18 years). The mean follow‐up period was 5.5 years (range, 2 to 12 years). Of the 15 revision patients, 5 (33%) had recurrent dislocations and required repeat revision stabilization surgery at a mean of 50 months (range, 22 to 102 months) after initial revision. No risk factors for failure were identified. The Kaplan‐Meier reoperation‐free estimates were 86% (95% confidence interval, 67% to 100%) at 24 months and 78% (95% confidence interval, 56% to 100%) at 48 months after revision surgery. The mean final Marx activity score was 14.8 (range, 5 to 20); American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 82.1 (range, 33 to 100); and University of California, Los Angeles score, 30.8 (range, 16 to 35). Conclusions At 5.5 years' follow‐up, adolescent athletes had a high failure rate of revision stabilization surgery and modest functional outcomes. We were unable to convincingly identify specific risk factors for failure of revision surgery. Level of Evidence Level IV, retrospective therapeutic case series.