In professional pitchers, distal UCL tears showed significantly higher odds of failure with nonoperative management compared with proximal tears. Thus, tear location should be considered when deciding between operative and nonoperative management.

No abstract

Objectives:Ulnar collateral injuries (UCL) of the elbow are prevalent among professional baseball pitchers. The decision on initial operative versus nonoperative management of these injuries remains subjective in many cases, with reported success rates with nonoperative management ranging from 42 to 93% in professional throwing athletes. No studies to date have identified objective characteristics specific to success or failure of nonoperative intervention. The purpose of this study was to identify radiologic predictors for success or failure in nonoperative management of ulnar collateral ligament injuries in professional pitchers.Methods:A retrospective review of pitchers sustaining UCL injuries between 2006 and 2015 from one professional baseball organization (one major league team and all minor league teams included) was performed. UCL injuries were identified in 38 players based on clinical and radiographic findings. Six players underwent initial surgical intervention without attempted nonoperative intervention and were excluded from analysis. This left 32 (84%) professional pitchers who underwent an initial trail of nonoperative treatment for partial UCL tears. Success was defined as return to same level of play (RTSP) or higher for >1 year. Failure was defined as recurrent pain or weakness requiring surgical intervention after a minimum of 3 months’ rest when attempting a return to throw rehabilitation program. MRI findings were classified as high or low grade sprains, proximal or distal location of injury, and with or without the presence of concomitant chronic findings.Results:Of the 32 patients who underwent nonoperative management, 10 (36%) failed and required subsequent ligament reconstruction. Between the success and failure groups, there was no significant difference seen in total shoulder arc of motion (P=.7776), shoulder internal rotation deficit (P=.3846) or loss in elbow extension (P=.0644) at the time of injury. When comparing MRI findings between the groups, distal tears were found in 90% (9/10) of those who failed nonoperative management compared to 18.2% (4/22) who were successful nonoperatively (P=<.0001). No significant difference was seen with high grade tears (P=.0817) between the groups. When adjusting for age, location and evidence of chronic changes on MRI, the likelihood of failing nonoperative management was 22.7 times greater (P=.001) with distal tears. No other variable reached significance, and no combination of variables showed a greater likelihood than distal location alone.Conclusion:In professional pitchers, distal ulnar collateral ligament tears described on MRI show significantly higher rates of failure with nonoperative management compared to proximal tears. This information provides an objective measure for evaluating operative versus nonoperative management of ulnar collateral ligament injuries in throwing athletes.

Multiple surgical and nonsurgical treatment options exist for patients with elbow stiffness. Many nonsurgical mobilization bracing options have been implemented to increase elbow range of motion. Three of the main bracing options for these patients are turnbuckle, static progressive stretch, and dynamic bracing. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature on turnbuckle, static progressive stretch, and dynamic bracing to provide information for practitioners and patients regarding which brace is more appropriate to use for elbow stiffness. Specifically, the authors compared the protocol and duration of splint use and changes in range of motion outcomes between static progressive and dynamic brace cohorts. A search of PubMed yielded 8 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Overall, although all 3 bracing options are available for patients, these studies found that, based on the evaluated metrics, the static progressive brace was a markedly superior option for patients with elbow stiffness. The time required to wear the static progressive stretch brace was 13 times less than that for the turnbuckle and 5 times less than that for the dynamic devices. Additionally, the high failure rate (10%) and low success rate (29%) of the dynamic brace, compared with the 63% regaining of functional range of motion in the static progressive stretch group, further highlight the benefits of the static progressive stretch brace. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):e127-e135.].