Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Arthroscopy The Jour...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Article . 2006 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Elite Throwing Athletes

Authors: Jason Lee, Koh; Michael F, Schafer; Greg, Keuter; Jason E, Hsu;

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Elite Throwing Athletes

Abstract

Purpose Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries may result in disabling valgus instability in throwing athletes. We evaluated the docking technique for UCL reconstruction and describe a modification to the technique. Methods UCL surgery was indicated in 20 high‐level baseball players (13 professional and 7 collegiate) based on medial elbow pain preventing effective throwing, clinically apparent medial elbow laxity, and magnetic resonance arthrogram consistent with UCL injury. The mean age was 21.7 years (range, 17.9 to 25.3 years). One patient had previous UCL reconstruction. One had previous arthroscopic elbow debridement. The mean time between injury and treatment was 73 days. Reconstruction was performed via a muscle‐splitting approach and the docking technique with palmaris or gracilis graft. For the initial 12 patients, a 2‐strand construct was used; however, during the study period, we developed and began using a 3‐strand construct with a double anterior bundle and a single posterior bundle, which was used in the next 8 patients. The ulnar nerve was not routinely transposed unless there were preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms (1 patient). Two patients had osteophyte debridement. One had removal of a loose body. Results Patients were followed up for a mean of 41.9 months (range, 6.4 to 67.1 months). One player was lost to follow‐up and could not be identified on a professional roster. Of the remaining 19 patients, 18 returned to their previous level of participation or higher. Two were occasional pitchers who did not wish to return to pitching but continued to play other positions. They were clinically and functionally asymptomatic. The mean time to return to play was 13.1 months (range, 6.3 to 21.3 months). By use of the Timmerman‐Andrews 100‐point subjective scoring system, the mean preoperative score was 77.0 (range, 65 to 80) and the mean postoperative score was 98.2 (range, 85 to 100). By use of the Conway‐Jobe scoring system, the outcome was rated as excellent in 17 patients and good in 2. One patient underwent subsequent ulnar nerve transposition and returned to the previous level of professional play. Conclusions UCL reconstruction with the docking technique is a reproducible and safe operation that can reliably return athletes to a high level of participation with limited adverse effects. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Treatment Outcome, Athletic Injuries, Humans, Ulna, Collateral Ligaments, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Baseball

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    154
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
154
Top 1%
Top 1%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!