The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify if abnormal tibial alignment was a risk factor for lateral meniscus posterior root tears (LMPRT) in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. Methods The medical charts of 200 patients treated for ACL ruptures between 2013 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and evaluated. MRI images and reports were assessed for concurrent meniscal tears. Radiographs were reviewed for tibia vara and tibial slope angles and MRI reports identifying lateral root tears were compared to intraoperative reports to determine accuracy. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to identify potential risk factors for LMPRTs. Results Of the 200 patients reviewed, a total of 97 individuals with concurrent meniscal injuries were identified. In patients sustaining a concurrent meniscal injury, there was a 4% incidence of medial meniscus posterior root tears and a 10.3% incidence of LMPRTs. Patients sustaining an ACL injury with an LMPRT were found to have greater tibia vara angles (4.2 ± 1.0 vs. 2.9 ± 1.7; p = 0.024), increased tibial slopes (12.6 ± 1.5 vs. 10.7 ± 2.9; p = 0.034), and higher BMIs (27.3 ± 2.9 vs. 25.3 ± 5.9; p = 0.034) when compared to patients without meniscus tears. There was low agreement between MRI and arthroscopic findings (kappa rate = 0.54). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a tibia vara angle > 3 was associated with a 5.2-fold increase (95% CI 0.99-27.01; p = 0.050), and a tibial slope > 12 with a 5.4-fold increase (95% CI 1.03-28.19; p = 0.046) in LMPRTs. Conclusions Patients with greater tibia varus angles, increased tibial slopes, and higher BMIs were found to have an increased risk of LMPRTs when sustaining an ACL rupture. There was a low rate of agreement between MRI and arthroscopy in identifying LMPRTs. In patients with ACL ruptures who have abnormal tibial alignment or increased BMI, physicians should be watchful for lateral meniscus posterior root tears. Level of evidence 3.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...

Background: Alterations in throwing mechanics have been identified as a risk factor for overuse injuries in baseball players. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) has been found to adversely affect throwing mechanics, but the effect of GIRD on medial elbow torque is unclear. Purpose: To investigate the relationship between GIRD and medial elbow torque in high school–aged baseball pitchers. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: High school baseball pitchers (14-18 years old) were recruited for participation in this study. Players’ height, weight, body mass index, and arm measurements were recorded as well as shoulder and elbow range of motion measurements. GIRD was calculated from the difference between dominant and nondominant shoulder internal rotation. Participants then pitched 5 fastballs at maximum effort while wearing a wireless sensor that recorded elbow torque, arm slot, arm speed, shoulder rotation, and ball velocity. Principal component analysis was performed to determine which variables were associated with elbow torque or ball velocity. Results: Twenty-three high school pitchers participated in this study; 35% (n = 8) of participants exhibited GIRD of at least 20°. The mean GIRD was 15.3°± 11.2° and was not a predictor of medial elbow torque ( P = .205) or ball velocity ( P = .333). Ball velocity, age, and height were predictors of medial elbow torque ( P = .012, P = .003, and P = .024, respectively). Conclusion: In high school baseball pitchers, GIRD was not associated with medial elbow torque during the pitching motion. Instead, ball velocity, player age, and player height carried greater significance. Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that high school pitchers with GIRD do not have an inherently greater risk for increased medial elbow torque during the throwing motion. It is recommended that pitchers instead assess their ball velocity to evaluate for relative differences in medial elbow torque.

Background: Postoperative rehabilitation protocols after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction typically involve a structured interval throwing program. In an effort to minimize torque placed on the UCL, athletes are often instructed to throw with a crow hop, even at short throwing distances. However, the effect of the crow hop on medial elbow stress is unknown. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine whether elbow stress differs with and without a crow hop across the throwing distances of a typical interval throwing program. We hypothesized that crow hop throws would generate lower torque on the elbow than standing throws at each distance of the interval throwing program. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Healthy high school and collegiate pitchers and position players were recruited from the surrounding area. Each player was outfitted with a wearable athletic sleeve and device that recorded elbow torque (Newton-meters), arm slot (degrees), arm speed (revolutions per minute), and shoulder rotation (degrees). Ball velocity (miles per hour) was measured using a radar gun. Players were instructed to perform 3 crow hop throws and 3 standing throws at distances of 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 feet. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare ball velocity, elbow torque, arm slot, arm speed, and shoulder rotation between crow hop and standing throws at each throwing distance. Results: Twenty athletes participated in this study (average age, 17.8 years; range, 15-25 years). The average medial elbow torque increased at each distance for both crow hop and standing throws at distances of 30, 45, 60, and 90 feet ( P < .05), after which there were no significant increases in elbow torque ( P > .05). The average torque was higher for crow hop throws than standing throws at distances of 30 feet (13.9 N·m vs 12.0 N·m; P = .002), 45 feet (21.8 N·m vs 19.3 N·m; P = .005), and 60 feet (28.0 N·m vs 24.5 N·m; P = .02). Conclusion: Crow hop throws generated greater medial elbow torque than standing throws at distances up to 60 feet; however, there were no differences in elbow torque at distances greater than 60 feet between the 2 throw types. For both crow hop and standing throws, elbow stress increased at each distance interval up to 90 feet before plateauing at distances greater than 90 feet. The crow hop throwing technique does not reduce medial elbow stress during a simulated interval throwing program, and it may actually increase torque at shorter throwing distances. Clinical Relevance: The results of our study indicate that it would be prudent for players to initially perform standing throws at shorter distances and only later be allowed to employ a natural crow hop at greater distances to minimize torque placed on the medial elbow during UCL rehabilitation protocols.