Hamstring Injuries in Major League Baseball Pitchers: Implications in Graft Selection for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction

Background: Hamstring tendons are commonly harvested as autograft for ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. There is no consensus in the literature whether the hamstring tendon should be harvested from the ipsilateral (drive) leg or contralateral (landing) leg of baseball pitchers undergoing ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. Hamstring injuries commonly occur in baseball players, but there are no reports on their incidence specifically among Major League Baseball (MLB) pitchers, nor are there reports on whether they occur more commonly in the drive leg or the landing leg. Hypothesis: Hamstring injuries occur more commonly in the landing legs of MLB pitchers. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: MLB pitchers who sustained hamstring injuries requiring time spent on the disabled list were identified from publicly available sources over 10 seasons. Demographics of the pitchers and injury and return-to-sport data were collected. Hamstring injuries to the drive leg were compared with injuries to the landing leg. Results: Sixty-five pitchers had 78 disabled list stints due to hamstring injuries over 10 seasons. The landing leg was injured in 67.9% of cases, and the most common mechanism of injury was pitching. There were no significant differences in demographics between pitchers who sustained drive leg and landing leg injuries. There was no significant difference in mechanism of injury or time to return to sport between pitchers who sustained drive leg and landing leg injuries. Conclusion: The landing leg is more commonly injured than the drive leg among MLB pitchers who sustain hamstring injuries. There is no difference in time to return to sport between pitchers who sustain drive leg and landing leg injuries. More research is required to determine whether there is a difference in performance or future injury between hamstring tendons harvested from the drive leg and the landing leg for ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction among pitchers.

Download Full-text

Side of Hamstring Harvest Does Not Affect Performance, Return-to-Sport Rate, or Future Hamstring Injuries After Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Among Professional Baseball Pitchers

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546519829473 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 47 (5) ◽

pp. 1111-1116 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Brandon J. Erickson ◽

Peter N. Chalmers ◽

John D’Angelo ◽

Kevin Ma ◽

Christopher S. Ahmad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Return To Sport ◽

Ulnar Collateral Ligament ◽

Professional Baseball ◽

Hamstring Autograft ◽

Collateral Ligament ◽

Injury Rates ◽

Hamstring Injuries ◽

Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction

Background: Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) is a successful procedure among professional baseball pitchers. It is unclear if hamstring tendon harvest side for UCLR affects the outcome or alters the risk for subsequent hamstring injury. Hypothesis: Players with prior UCLR with ipsilateral (drive leg) hamstring autograft will have the same return-to-sport (RTS) rate and performance upon RTS but a higher number of subsequent lower extremity injuries than those with contralateral (landing leg) hamstring autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All players between 2010 and 2015 who underwent UCLR with hamstring autograft were included. Surgical details of their procedures were recorded from operative reports. Outcomes for UCLR with hamstring autograft harvested from the drive leg were compared with UCLR with the graft harvested from the landing leg. Results: Overall, 191 players underwent UCLR with hamstring autograft (drive leg, n = 58, 30%; landing leg, n = 133, 70%). The docking technique was more common in the drive leg group, while the figure-of-8 technique was more common in the landing leg group ( P > .001). More patients in the landing leg group underwent concomitant treatment of the ulnar nerve than the drive leg group ( P < .001). No difference existed in RTS rates or timing of RTS between groups. No differences in subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral hamstring injuries occurred between players who underwent UCLR with hamstring autograft from the drive leg or the landing leg ( P≥ .999 and P = .460, respectively). No difference in overall upper or lower extremity injury rates existed between groups (all P > .05), and no difference in performance metrics existed between groups upon RTS. Conclusion: No difference in RTS rate, performance upon RTS, or subsequent injury rates (hamstring, lower extremity, or upper extremity) existed between players who underwent UCLR with hamstring autograft whether the graft came from the drive or the landing leg.

Download Full-text