Outcomes After Ulnar Collateral Ligament Revision Reconstruction in Baseball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding the success of ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) revision reconstruction. Understanding outcomes after UCL revision reconstruction is important in clinical decision making for overhead athletes. PURPOSE: To evaluate return to play and patient-reported outcomes after UCL revision reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: All patients who underwent UCL revision reconstruction, attributed to retear of the ligament or pain, between June 2004 and July 2016 at 2 surgical centers were identified. Charts were reviewed for age, sex, date of primary and revision reconstruction, sport played, level of play, graft type, and complications. Patients were contacted by telephone to determine time to return to play, current level of participation, Conway score, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Score, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 65 consecutive baseball players who underwent revision UCL reconstruction, 40 (62%) were contacted at a minimum 22 months after surgery. Of these, 38 (95%) were pitchers and 2 (5%) were position players. Time to return to throwing was 6.2 ± 2.3 months (mean ± SD), and the KJOC score was 74.2 ± 20.7. Based on the Conway score, 50% (20/40) had an excellent result, indicating a return to the previous competition level for at least 1 year, and 30% (12/40) had a good result, indicating a return to a lower level for at least 1 year. For those who were able to return to competition, it took 12.7 ± 3.6 months. In pitchers, 47% (18/38) returned to their previous competition levels for at least 1 year, with a KJOC score of 73.7 ± 21.1. Pitchers were able to return to throwing at 6.3 ± 2.3 months and competition at 12.8 ± 3.7 months. CONCLUSION: Only half of baseball players undergoing UCL revision reconstruction were able to return to their previous levels of competition. Outcomes for revision reconstructions are not as promising as primary procedures. Baseball players should be cautioned that they may not return to their previous levels of play after a revision reconstruction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".