Dines, Joshua S.

Background: A more detailed assessment of the anatomy of the entire medial ulnar collateral ligament complex (MUCLC) is desired as the rate of medial elbow reconstruction surgery continues to rise. Purpose: To quantify the anatomy of the MUCLC, including the anterior bundle (AB), posterior bundle (PB), and transverse ligament (TL). Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Ten unpaired, fresh-frozen cadaveric elbows underwent 3-dimensional (3D) digitization and computed tomography with 3D reconstruction. Ligament footprint areas and geometries, distances to key bony landmarks, and isometry were determined. A surgeon digitized the visual center of each footprint, and this location was compared with the geometric centroid calculated from the outline of the digitized footprint. Results: The mean surface area of the AB was 324.2 mm 2 , with an origin footprint of 32.3 mm 2 and an elongated insertional footprint of 187.6 mm 2 (length, 29.7 mm). The mean area of the PB was 116.6 mm 2 (origin, 25.9 mm 2 ; insertion, 15.8 mm 2 ), and the mean surface area of the TL was 134.5 mm 2 (origin, 21.2 mm 2 ; insertion, 16.7 mm 2 ). The geometric centroids of all footprints could be predicted within 0.8 to 1.3 mm, with the exception of the AB insertion centroid, which was 7.6 mm distal to the perceived center at the apex of the sublime tubercle. While the PB remained relatively isometric from 0° to 90° of flexion ( P = .606), the AB lengthened by 2.2 mm ( P < .001). Conclusion: Contrary to several historical reports, the insertional footprint of the AB was larger, elongated, and tapered. The TL demonstrated a previously unrecognized expansive soft tissue insertion directly onto the AB, and additional analysis of the biomechanical contribution of this structure is needed. Clinical Relevance: These findings may serve as a foundation for future study of the MUCLC and help refine current surgical reconstruction techniques.

Background: Although restricted hip range of motion (ROM) is associated with an increased risk for injuries in baseball players, the evolution of hip ROM over the season remains undefined. Hypothesis: Hip ROM profiles would be symmetric between hips and positions (pitchers vs position players) but would decrease from preseason to postseason. Additionally, it was hypothesized that this decrease in motion would correlate with workload. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Bilateral hip ROM was assessed in 96 professional baseball players (54 pitchers, 42 position players) preseason and postseason. ROM comparisons were made between lead and trailing hips, pitchers and position players, and preseason and postseason measures. The change from preseason to postseason was correlated with player demographics and measures of workload for pitchers and position players. Results: Preseason hip ROM was symmetric between hips; however, pitchers demonstrated increased preseason lead hip internal rotation (IR) ( P = .018) and bilateral hip total ROM (TROM) ( P < .020) compared with position players. From preseason to postseason, position players lost 7° of external rotation (ER) ( P ≤ .005 ). In pitchers, the loss of IR correlated with increased pitches ( P = .016) and innings ( P = .037), while the loss of ER ( P = .005 ) and TROM ( P = .014) correlated with increasing mean fastball velocity. Workload for position players did not correlate with motion loss. Conclusion: Symmetric hip ROM profiles should be anticipated in baseball players; however, pitchers may have increased preseason IR and TROM and postseason ER and TROM relative to position players. Although loss of motion correlated with workload in pitchers, this was not the case for position players. Hip motion should be monitored over the course of the season. This is particularly true for pitchers who lose IR as workload increases, which may place them at a greater risk for injuries.

Purpose The primary aims of this work were to (1) describe normal range of motion (ROM) profiles for elite pitchers, (2) describe the characteristics of shoulder and elbow injuries in professional pitchers over a 6‐year period in one Major League Baseball organization, and (3) identify ROM measures that were independently associated with a future shoulder or elbow injury. Methods Over 6 seasons (2010‐2015), a preseason assessment was performed on all pitchers invited to Major League Baseball Spring Training for a single organization. ROM measures included shoulder flexion, horizontal adduction, external rotation (ER), internal rotation, as well as elbow flexion and extension, were measured for both the dominant and nondominant arm, and total range of motion and deficits were calculated. All noncontact shoulder and elbow injuries were identified. Using multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis to control for age, height, weight, and all other ROM measures, the factors associated with an increased risk of subsequent shoulder or elbow injury were identified. Results A total of 53 shoulder (n = 25) and elbow (n = 28) injuries occurred during 132 pitcher seasons (n = 81 pitchers). The most significant categorical risk factor associated with increased elbow injury rates was the presence of a shoulder flexion deficit >5° (odds ratio [OR] 2.83; P = .042). For continuous variables, the risk of elbow injury increased by 7% for each degree of increased shoulder ER deficit (OR 1.07; P = .030) and 9% for each degree of decreased shoulder flexion (OR 1.09; P = .017). None of the measures significantly correlated with shoulder injuries. Conclusions Preseason shoulder ER and flexion deficits are independent risk factors for the development of elbow injuries during the upcoming season. Although prior work has supported the importance of reducing glenohumeral internal rotation deficits in pitchers, this study demonstrates that deficits in shoulder ER and flexion are more significant predictors of subsequent elbow injury. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Purpose To use a national database to determine (1) the incidence of joint infection after elbow arthroscopy, (2) identify independent patient‐related risk factors for infection, and (3) determine the influence of concomitant intra‐articular corticosteroid injection on infection risk. Methods The 100% Medicare Standard Analytic Files were queried to identify patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy from 2005 to 2012. Postoperative elbow infections occurring within 6 months of surgery were identified using both International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes for postoperative infection and Current Procedural Terminology codes for the surgical treatment of a postoperative infection. Patients were excluded if their initial arthroscopic procedure was performed for infection. A multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was then used to evaluate patient‐related risk factors for postoperative infection. Results Of the 2,704 elbow arthroscopy cases identified, 42 (1.55%) developed a postoperative infection. The annual incidence of infections did not increase significantly over the course of the study ( P = .374). A number of patient demographics and medical comorbidities significantly increased the risk of infection. The most notable factors included age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, P = .006), body mass index > 40 (OR 1.97, P = .024), tobacco usage (OR 1.80, P = .046), alcohol usage (OR 4.01, P < .001), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.10, P = .015), inflammatory arthritis (OR 2.81, P < .001), hypercoagulable disorder (OR 2.51, P = .015), and intra‐articular corticosteroid injection at the time of arthroscopy (OR 2.79, P = .006). Conclusions The annual number of elbow arthroscopies performed in the United States has increased steadily; however, the postoperative infection rate remained consistently low at 1.55%. There are a number of patient‐specific risk factors that increase this risk with OR ranging from 1.97 to 4.01. Similarly, patients who receive an intra‐articular corticosteroid injection at the time of surgery are nearly 3 times (OR 2.79) more likely to develop a postoperative infection. Level of Evidence Level III, case‐control study.

Background: Oblique injuries are known to be a common cause of time out of play for professional baseball players, and prior work has suggested that injury rates may be on the rise in Major League Baseball (MLB). Purpose: To better understand the current incidence of oblique injuries, determine their impact based on time out of play, and to identify common injury patterns that may guide future injury prevention programs. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiological study. Methods: Using the MLB Health and Injury Tracking System, all oblique injuries that resulted in time out of play in MLB and Minor League Baseball (MiLB) during the 2011 to 2015 seasons were identified. Player demographics such as age, position/role, and handedness were included. Injury-specific factors analyzed included the following: date of injury, timing during season, days missed, mechanism, side, treatment, and reinjury status. Results: A total of 996 oblique injuries occurred in 259 (26%) MLB and 737 (74%) MiLB players. Although the injury rate was steady in MiLB, the MLB injury rate declined ( P = .037). A total of 22,064 days were missed at a mean rate of 4413 days per season and 22.2 days per injury. The majority of these occurred during batting (n = 455, 46%) or pitching (n = 348, 35%), with pitchers losing 5 days more per injury than batters ( P < .001). The leading side was injured in 77% of cases and took 5 days longer to recover from than trailing side injuries ( P = .009). Seventy-nine (7.9%) players received either a corticosteroid or platelet-rich plasma injection, and the mean recovery time was 11 days longer compared with those who did not receive an injection ( P < .001). Conclusion: Although the rate of abdominal oblique injuries is on the decline in MLB, this is not the case for MiLB, and these injuries continue to represent a significant source of time out of play in professional baseball. The vast majority of injuries occur on the lead side, and these injuries result in the greatest amount time out of play. The benefit of injections for the treatment of oblique injuries remains unknown.

Abstract As our knowledge and technology advance, the indications for elbow arthroscopy continue to grow rapidly. During this expansion, a number of new portals have been described and reported using variable nomenclature and location descriptions. Accordingly, a comprehensive review of these portals is warranted. Given the concern for potential iatrogenic injury to surrounding neurovascular structures, a discussion of these critical nerves and vessels is also timely. In this work, we review pertinent surface anatomy; portal nomenclature, locations, and utility; and review distances to the nearest structures at risk. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract The field of elbow arthroscopy has evolved significantly since the procedure was first introduced more than 30 years ago. As our knowledge and understanding grows, numerous technical modifications have been made to improve the safety and efficacy of elbow arthroscopy. One of the most significant modifications is the change from the supine hanging position to the supine‐suspended position with the use of a mechanical arm holder. Currently, the supine‐suspended and lateral decubitus positions are the 2 most commonly used techniques. In this work, we discuss the history of the supine position, provide key points for proper patient positioning, and detail the steps of diagnostic elbow arthroscopy. It is our hope that this work will serve as an up‐to‐date review and summary of the most critical components of this procedure for emerging elbow arthroscopists. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract In recent years, arthroscopy has gained popularity as a preferred treatment of a multitude of pathologies affecting the elbow. Since its initial description in 1985, many modifications have been made as our knowledge and technology have advanced. Currently, the majority of arthroscopic procedures are performed in either the lateral decubitus or supine suspended position. In this work, we discuss the history, patient positioning, and key steps for performing elbow arthroscopy in the lateral decubitus position. In addition to key steps, a number of strengths and limitations of this set up are discussed in detail. When properly executed, elbow arthroscopy can be performed in a safe and efficient manner with minimal risk to patients. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.