Return to Play and Performance Perceptions of Baseball Players After Isolated SLAP Tear Repair
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Variable return-to-play (RTP) rates have been reported after surgical repair of superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears in baseball players. Many studies, however, have not controlled for concomitant shoulder injuries. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of RTP and return to previous or higher performance level (RTPP) and long-term outcomes after isolated SLAP tear repair. The hypothesis was that improved outcomes would be identified compared with previous reports. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The records of 232 players who underwent isolated SLAP tear repair from 2004 to 2014 were reviewed. A total of 98 players who were at least 12 months out from surgery were identified. Through telephone interviews, participants completed the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) and answered scripted questions about RTP, RTPP, and current symptoms. Results: Of the 98 players who met the inclusion criteria, 73 (74.5%) participated. The mean age at the time of surgery was 19.8 ± 2.9 years. The mean follow-up time was 86.2 ± 25.1 months overall; it was 84.4 ± 24.4 months for pitchers and 90.3 ± 26.7 months for other position players, ( P = .40). There were 10 professional, 36 collegiate, and 27 high school players. Most players perceived successful RTP (83.6%), including 80.0% of pitchers and 91.3% of other position players ( P = .23). However, RTPP rates were lower, at 52.3% (n = 26) and 78.3% (n = 18) for pitchers and other position players, respectively ( P = .03). Pitchers were younger at the time of surgery (19.3 ± 3.0 vs 20.8 ± 3.0 years, respectively; P = .03) and had greater perceived shoulder and general health impairments compared with other position players ( P ≤ .02). Players who perceived successful RTPP had better WOSI of the healthy shoulder and individual physical, sports, lifestyle, and emotion scores compared with players who did not perceive successful RTPP. Conclusion: After the surgical repair of isolated type II or greater SLAP tears, other position players displayed superior RTP (91.3% vs 80.0%, respectively) and RTPP (78.3% vs 52.3%, respectively) rates than pitchers. Long-term follow-up suggests that pitchers may perceive greater long-term impairments than other position players and are less likely to return to their previous or higher performance level.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».