Literature DB >> 31696134

Performance and Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Professional Baseball Players.

Brandon J Erickson1, Peter N Chalmers2, John D'Angelo3, Kevin Ma3, Diane L Dahm4, Anthony A Romeo1, Christopher S Ahmad5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is the gold standard treatment for ACL tears to allow baseball players to return to sport (RTS). The optimal graft type and femoral tunnel drilling technique are currently unknown. HYPOTHESIS: There is a high rate of RTS in professional baseball players after ACLR, with no significant difference in RTS rates or performance between cases and controls or between graft types or femoral drilling techniques. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: All professional baseball players who underwent ACLR between 2010 and 2015 were included. Demographic and performance data (pre- and postoperative) for each player were recorded. Performance metrics were then compared between cases and matched controls.
RESULTS: A total of 124 players (mean age, 23.7 ± 4.1 years; 83% minor league players) underwent ACLR. Of these, 80% returned to sport (73% to the same or higher level) at a mean 310 ± 109 days overall and 333 ± 126 days at the same or higher level. The most common graft type was an ipsilateral bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft (n = 87; 70%). A total of 91 players underwent concomitant meniscal debridement or repair. No significant difference in any of the primary performance metrics existed from before to after ACLR. Compared with matched controls, no significant difference existed in RTS rates or any performance metrics after ACLR. No significant difference existed in RTS rates or primary performance outcome measures between graft types or femoral drilling techniques.
CONCLUSION: The RTS rate for professional baseball players after ACLR was 80%. No significant difference in performance metrics existed between BTB and hamstring autografts or between femoral drilling techniques. Furthermore, no significant difference in performance or RTS rates existed between cases and matched controls. Femoral drilling technique and graft type did not affect performance and RTS rates in professional baseball players after ACLR.
© The Author(s) 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Major League Baseball (MLB); anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR); graft type; knee; return to sport (RTS); surgery

Year:  2019        PMID: 31696134      PMCID: PMC6822199          DOI: 10.1177/2325967119878431

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med        ISSN: 2325-9671


Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries have been increasing in frequency in both recreational and professional athletes over the past 10 years.[22,24] The gold standard treatment for athletes who sustain an ACL tear and wish to return to sport is ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Results after ACLR in professional athletes have been reasonable, with return-to-sport (RTS) rates generally cited at >75%.[9-11,14,15,18,26] However, the majority of studies available regarding RTS rates and performance upon RTS have been limited to publicly available data.[9,24] There are several surgical techniques for drilling the femoral tunnel and graft types that are available when performing ACLR. Commonly used femoral drilling techniques include anteromedial drilling, transtibial drilling, and outside-in drilling, although studies to date have failed to demonstrate that one technique is superior to the others.[1,6,12] While there are countless graft types available for ACLR, including bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB), hamstring, quadriceps, tibialis anterior, and others, grafts can be grossly broken down into autografts and allografts.[5,17,19,20] Therefore, the purposes of this study were to determine the following among professional baseball players who underwent ACLR: (1) the rate of RTS after ACLR, (2) the difference in performance between before surgery and after RTS, (3) the difference in RTS rates and performance between players who underwent ACLR and matched controls without a history of ACLR, and (4) the difference in RTS rates and performance based on the femoral drilling technique and graft type in players who underwent ACLR. We hypothesized that there is a high rate of RTS in professional baseball players after ACLR with no significant difference in RTS rates or performance, specifically regarding the primary performance variables of earned run average (ERA), walks plus hits per inning pitched (WHIP), fielding independent pitching (FIP), and wins above replacement (WAR), between cases (ACLR) and controls (no ACLR). Furthermore, we hypothesized that no difference in RTS rates or performance would exist between graft types or femoral drilling techniques.

Methods

This study was performed with the approval of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the MLB Research Committee. All professional baseball players who underwent ACLR between 2010 and 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Study data from the MLB Health and Injury Tracking System (HITS) database were analyzed. The HITS database is a centralized electronic medical record that contains deidentified player information and was developed as a leaguewide surveillance system in 2010 to record player injuries and disability time.[28] This database was agreed upon by the MLB and MLBPA as a more efficient way to track medical histories and the injury history of a player throughout all major and minor league affiliates. Data are entered/uploaded into the HITS system by trainers and include injury reports, imaging studies, and operative reports, among others. The HITS system has been used in several prior studies and has been found to be a reliable source of information.[3,4] One author (B.J.E.) reviewed all operative reports for each player to confirm that the player underwent ACLR. Surgical variables including graft type, femoral drilling technique, concomitant injuries, and others were recorded for each player. All players identified were included in this study if data related to the RTS rate were provided. A player was deemed to have returned to sport if he played in any professional game after surgery. Players who underwent ACLR with a minimum 18-month follow-up were included in the study. Participant inclusion criteria were any male professional baseball player (after being drafted or at least 1 game played in professional baseball before ACLR). Participant exclusion criteria were collegiate (National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA]) players and players who never played in professional baseball. Players who returned to professional baseball and had played in at least 1 game were included in the preinjury and postinjury in-game performance statistical analysis (Tables 1 -4). In-game performance variables were analyzed as an average over the pre-ACLR and post-ACLR course of the player’s career. A control group was selected to compare the data with the case (ACLR) group. Controls were matched to cases based on sex, age, years of experience in professional baseball, level of play (Fall Ball, Rookie, A-, A, AA, AAA, MLB), and performance metrics (Appendix Tables A1 and A2). An “index year” was designated for controls, analogous to the ACLR year in cases. In other words, the controls played the same number of years before the index year as the cases played before the injury. The same demographic and in-game performance data were collected and analyzed as a total before and after the index year.
TABLE 1

Demographic and Operative Data (N = 124)

No. or n (%)
Level of play
 Minor league103 (83)
 Major league21 (17)
Side of injury
 Right70 (56)
 Left54 (44)
ACLR
 Primary118 (95)
 Revision6 (5)
Graft type
 BTB autograft (ipsilateral)87 (70)
 Hamstring autograft (4-strand)23 (19)
 Quadriceps autograft1 (1)
 BTB allograft6 (5)
 Achilles allograft5 (4)
 Hamstring allograft1 (1)
 Tibialis anterior allograft1 (1)
Drilling technique
 Anteromedial71 (57)
 Transtibial47 (38)
 Outside-in6 (5)
Concomitant abnormality and treatment
 Meniscal tear (91 players)
  Medial56
   Debridement23
   Repair27
  Lateral64
   Debridement47
   Repair9
 Chondral damage24
  Medial femoral condyle9
  Lateral femoral condyle9
  Patella8
  Medial tibial plateau4
  Lateral tibial plateau3
  Microfracture4
  Chondroplasty20
 Posterolateral corner reconstruction3
 Posterior cruciate ligament repair2
 Medial collateral ligament repair2
 Lateral collateral ligament repair1
 Medial patellofemoral ligament repair1

ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone.

TABLE 2

Positions Played by Each Player

PositionNo.
First baseman7
Second baseman7
Shortstop17
Third baseman7
Catcher18
Center fielder6
Infielder4
Left fielder1
Right fielder0
Left-handed reliever4
Left-handed starter9
Outfielder13
Right-handed reliever15
Right-handed starter16
TABLE 3

Performance Metrics of Players Using Varying Graft Types and Drilling Techniques

ERAWHIPRTS (%)
PreoperativePostoperativePreoperativePostoperativeSame/Higher LevelLower LevelNone
Graft type
 BTB autograft5.23 ± 6.207.01 ± 9.801.36 ± 0.301.44 ± 0.3074.503.6021.80
 Hamstring autograft5.24 ± 3.803.94 ± 1.101.63 ± 0.601.36 ± 0.3072.700.0027.30
 P value.614.970.327.902.769
Drilling technique
 Anteromedial3.72 ± 2.103.91 ± 1.301.38 ± 0.301.35 ± 0.2065.906.8027.30
 Transtibial8.02 ± 9.3010.20 ± 13.301.46 ± 0.401.54 ± 0.4081.803.0015.20
 P value.258.201.902.653.296

BTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone; ERA, earned run average; RTS, return to sport; WHIP, walks plus hits per inning pitched.

TABLE 4

Graft Type by Position

GraftInfieldersOutfieldersPitchersCatchers
BTB autograft31 (73.8)15 (75.0)34 (77.3)7 (38.9)
Hamstring autograft4 (9.5)3 (15.0)8 (18.2)8 (44.4)
Quadriceps autograft1 (2.4)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
BTB allograft4 (9.5)1 (5.0)0 (0.0)1 (5.6)
Achilles allograft2 (4.8)1 (5.0)1 (2.3)1 (5.6)
Hamstring allograft0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (5.6)
Tibialis anterior allograft0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (2.3)0 (0.0)

Data are shown as n (%). BTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone.

TABLE A1

Preoperative (Before Index Year for Controls) Demographic and Performance Metrics

CasesControls P
Demographic information
 Age, y23.70 ± 4.1024.10 ± 4.40.454
 Experience in professional baseball, y4.14 ± 4.104.17 ± 4.50.814
 Position, %
  Infielder26.9027.40.929
  Outfielder17.609.50.929
  Catcher14.8019.10.929
  Starting pitcher23.1023.80.929
  Relief pitcher17.6020.20.929
 Throws right-handed, %85.2086.90.734
 Bats right-handed, %61.1066.70.165
Preoperative pitching-specific statistics
 Win-loss percentage12.50 ± 48.700.57 ± 0.17.958
 ERA5.11 ± 5.703.81 ± 1.10.653
 Average runs7.38 ± 11.805.43 ± 1.10.888
 WHIP1.41 ± 0.391.34 ± 0.15.914
 Hits per 9 innings8.60 ± 2.208.62 ± 1.20.985
 Home runs per 9 innings0.57 ± 0.410.51 ± 0.34.835
 Walks allowed per 9 innings4.06 ± 2.103.42 ± 1.20.379
 Strikeouts per 9 innings8.56 ± 2.038.18 ± 1.60.610
 Strikeouts per walk2.94 ± 1.502.90 ± 1.10.667
 Wins per year6.73 ± 12.803.74 ± 1.90.923
 Losses per year15.30 ± 50.503.43 ± 2.50.939
 Games per year20.30 ± 11.9021.80 ± 8.90.383
 Games started per year6.65 ± 7.607.71 ± 7.10.400
 Games finished per year7.37 ± 10.905.55 ± 5.10.364
 Complete games per year1.47 ± 6.1 00.12 ± 0.20.813
 Shutouts per year0.11 ± 0.400.05 ± 0.10.909
 Saves per year3.08 ± 6.301.11 ± 1.40.942
 Innings pitched per year53.70 ± 36.2061.60 ± 35.60.251
 Hits per year52.70 ± 36.4061.10 ± 35.60.270
 Runs per year25.10 ± 18.9031.70 ± 17.90.084
 Earned runs per year21.20 ± 17.4027.20 ± 16.10.084
 Home runs per year3.45 ± 3.304.39 ± 3.90.444
 Walks allowed per year19.60 ± 13.4021.50 ± 10.60.383
 Intentional walks per year4.82 ± 17.900.60 ± 0.69.666
 Shutouts per year46.30 ± 28.7053.40 ± 26.40.305
 Hit batters per year3.49 ± 2.204.16 ± 2.40.261
 Balks per year0.26 ± 0.300.37 ± 0.50.870
 Wild pitches per year4.59 ± 3.305.02 ± 3.50.705
 Batters faced per year226.20 ± 159.00265.90 ± 137.10.270
 WAR (pitchers)1.21 ± 1.300.44 ± 0.60.272
 FIP4.18 ± 1.105.56 ± 2.40.224
Preoperative batting-specific statistics
 Games per year67.10 ± 31.2073.60 ± 32.20.454
 Plate appearances per year266.80 ± 136.40291.50 ± 141.30.507
 At bats per year235.20 ± 122.40256.01 ± 127.90.553
 Runs per year33.40 ± 19.4035.70 ± 18.40.598
 Hits per year63.20 ± 36.3068.60 ± 36.90.601
 Doubles per year12.10 ± 8.1013.90 ± 8.40.407
 Triples per year1.98 ± 1.501.78 ± 1.70.377
 Home runs per year4.38 ± 5.104.71 ± 4.10.392
 Runs batted in per year26.90 ± 19.3031.90 ± 16.80.540
 Stolen bases per year7.51 ± 7.606.23 ± 5.90.655
 Caught stealing per year3.64 ± 3.103.28 ± 2.80.687
 Walks per year23.30 ± 14.7026.30 ± 14.80.358
 Strikeouts per year48.40 ± 25.4048.90 ± 22.80>.999
 Total bases per year101.20 ± 6.96102.70 ± 66.50.684
 Double plays grounded into per year5.33 ± 4.105.39 ± 3.90.748
 Hit by pitch per year2.93 ± 2.003.37 ± 3.10.888
 Sacrifice hits per year1.87 ± 1.602.33 ± 1.80.264
 Sacrifice flies per year1.99 ± 1.562.10 ± 1.40.552
 Intentional walks per year1.32 ± 1.581.05 ± 1.10.669
 Hits per at bat 0.24 ± 0.10 0.27 ± 0.10 .011
 On-base percentage0.33 ± 0.100.34 ± 0.10.296
 Slugging percentage0.35 ± 0.100.38 ± 0.10.188
 On-base plus slugging percentage0.68 ± 0.100.73 ± 0.10.164
 WAR (batters)0.69 ± 1.400.33 ± 0.80.863

Data are shown as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. Bolded values indicate statistical significance (P < .05). ERA, earned run average; FIP, fielding independent pitching; WAR, wins above replacement; WHIP, walks plus hits per inning pitched.

TABLE A2

Postoperative (After Index Year for Controls) Demographic and Performance Metrics

CasesControls P
Postoperative pitching-specific statistics
 Win-loss percentage20.80 ± 74.9020.48 ± 0.20.917
 ERA6.35 ± 8.605.07 ± 4.10.434
 Average runs9.51 ± 18.205.61 ± 4.00.233
 WHIP1.42 ± 0.301.47 ± 0.40.925
 Hits per 9 innings9.26 ± 1.609.49 ± 3.10.450
 Home runs per 9 innings0.76 ± 0.500.79 ± 0.40.450
 Walks allowed per 9 innings3.53 ± 2.103.80 ± 1.70.792
 Strikeouts per 9 innings7.61 ± 1.507.92 ± 1.60.365
 Strikeouts per walk3.17 ± 2.902.45 ± 1.10.592
 Wins per year9.36 ± 24.009.59 ± 2.40.901
 Losses per year6.40 ± 88.203.44 ± 2.60.492
 Games per year25.20 ± 14.7026.00 ± 12.50.663
 Games started per year4.95 ± 8.106.46 ± 8.30.257
 Games finished per year9.34 ± 12.107.63 ± 6.70.957
 Complete games per year2.77 ± 12.500.09 ± 0.23.498
 Shutouts per year0.12 ± 0.580.01 ± 0.03.505
 Saves per year3.02 ± 8.501.49 ± 2.70.424
 Innings pitched per year54.80 ± 39.3061.30 ± 40.50.593
 Hits per year62.90 ± 45.3052.20 ± 44.90.722
 Runs per year29.10 ± 22.4031.30 ± 20.50.682
 Earned runs per year25.10 ± 19.8027.60 ± 19.00.729
 Home runs per year4.47 ± 4.205.79 ± 5.90.454
 Walks allowed per year18.40 ± 12.9021.90 ± 12.90.408
 Intentional walks per year9.24 ± 37.900.54 ± 0.50.533
 Shutouts per year44.40 ± 31.7051.90 ± 36.40.551
 Hit batters per year2.72 ± 2.503.25 ± 2.70.335
 Balks per year0.43 ± 0.800.31 ± 0.30.546
 Wild pitches per year3.75 ± 2.404.39 ± 4.10.643
 Batters faced per year232.60 ± 175.10266.10 ± 174.30.569
 WAR (pitchers)0.69 ± 1.300.19 ± 0.80.299
 FIP5.39 ± 3.005.53 ± 3.30.918
Postoperative batting-specific statistics
 Games per year76.80 ± 42.3069.40 ± 31.20.443
 Plate appearances per year295.40 ± 172.70258.50 ± 123.20.315
 At bats per year263.90 ± 153.90227.70 ± 108.50.273
 Runs per year33.40 ± 22.4028.40 ± 15.30.412
 Hits per year69.00 ± 44.0057.40 ± 30.20.205
 Doubles per year13.30 ± 10.2011.30 ± 6.60.526
 Triples per year1.42 ± 1.501.22 ± 1.20.664
 Home runs per year5.56 ± 6.204.39 ± 3.80.894
 Runs batted in per year29.90 ± 19.2026.40 ± 13.90.706
 Stolen bases per year5.28 ± 8.103.48 ± 4.30.503
 Caught stealing per year2.62 ± 3.001.69 ± 1.90.121
 Walks per year24.90 ± 18.8024.20 ± 16.50.966
 Strikeouts per year54.00 ± 32.2050.10 ± 30.20.659
 Total bases per year114.20 ± 74.30135.20 ± 100.90.297
 Double plays grounded into per year6.39 ± 4.807.83 ± 5.80.280
 Hit by pitch per year4.35 ± 5.004.01 ± 2.70.558
 Sacrifice hits per year2.31 ± 1.902.34 ± 2.40.712
 Sacrifice flies per year2.52 ± 1.302.99 ± 2.60.737
 Intentional walks per year1.20 ± 1.901.46 ± 1.50.168
 Hits per at bat0.26 ± 0.030.25 ± 0.03.628
 On-base percentage0.33 ± 0.100.31 ± 0.10.133
 Slugging percentage0.38 ± 0.100.36 ± 0.10.325
 On-base plus slugging percentage0.72 ± 0.100.68 ± 0.10.247
 WAR (batters)0.46 ± 0.900.21 ± 0.70.418

Data are shown as mean ± SD. ERA, earned run average; FIP, fielding independent pitching; WAR, wins above replacement; WHIP, walks plus hits per inning pitched.

Demographic and Operative Data (N = 124) ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone. Positions Played by Each Player Performance Metrics of Players Using Varying Graft Types and Drilling Techniques BTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone; ERA, earned run average; RTS, return to sport; WHIP, walks plus hits per inning pitched. Graft Type by Position Data are shown as n (%). BTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated. Data were analyzed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and parametric and nonparametric tests were used as appropriate. Performance outcomes were averaged before the injury and postoperatively/after the injury. To do so, performance data were categorized as either ≥1 year before the injury or ≥1 year postoperatively. Performance data within the year of surgery were felt to be too influenced by variations in rehabilitation to allow comparisons across participants. Patients who underwent revision procedures or concomitant reconstruction or repair of another knee ligament were excluded from further analyses. If they underwent index ACLR as a professional, they were included for this surgery, but the data after their revision procedure were not included as a separate entity. Performance data are reported as both raw counts and percentages. For those performance data available as counts, we determined the number of available years before the injury and postoperatively/after the injury and divided the sum of each count by the number of available years to determine the number per year. For those performance data available as percentages, we calculated averages weighted by the number of games played per year. Preinjury and postinjury/postoperative performance data were then compared using the paired Student t test and related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test as appropriate based on data normality. For each player, the maximum preoperative and postoperative level of play was calculated, with the 9 levels arranged from highest to lowest as MLB, AAA, AA, A+, A, A-, Rookie, Foreign, and Fall Ball. Based on the preinjury and postinjury/postoperative maximum level, each player could then be categorized as not having returned to play, having returned but to a lower level, or having returned to the same or a higher level. We then compared preoperative and postoperative data between operative cases and matched controls. We also conducted subgroup analyses to compare (1) 4-strand hamstring autografts and ipsilateral BTB autografts and (2) anteromedial and transtibial femoral drilling techniques. Other graft types and drilling techniques were not compared, as the numbers did not support subgroup analyses.

Results

Overall, 124 professional baseball players underwent ACLR between 2010 and 2015 (Table 2). A total of 57 different surgeons performed these procedures. Of these, 80% of players were able to return to sport (73% of all players returned at the same or higher level). No difference existed in RTS rates between major and minor league players. On average, it took players 310 ± 109 days to return to sport overall and 333 ± 126 days to return to the same or higher level of play. The majority of ACLR procedures were performed in minor league players (n = 103; 83%), and the most common graft type was an ipsilateral BTB autograft (n = 87; 70%) (Table 1). Of the 13 players (10.5%) who underwent ACLR using an allograft, 10 of these were for primary ACLR, and only 3 were in the setting of revision ACLR. When evaluating predictors of surgical technique, no significant difference existed in age between players who underwent ACLR with a BTB or hamstring graft (P = .470). Players were no more likely to undergo accessory anteromedial femoral drilling than transtibial femoral drilling if the graft type was a hamstring (P = .966), and the graft type was not different between the landing (lead) leg and drive (trail) leg in pitchers (P = .659). Overall, 91 individual players sustained a concomitant medial, lateral, or both medial and lateral meniscal tears. When evaluating medial and lateral meniscal tears, 48% of the medial meniscal tears were repaired, while only 14% of all lateral meniscal tears were repaired. Between 2010 and 2015, there was 1 player who underwent primary ACLR followed by contralateral ACLR (425 days apart), while 3 players underwent ACLR followed by revision ACLR. These patients were excluded from subsequent analyses. The primary grafts in these 3 players were a BTB autograft (n = 1), BTB allograft (n = 1), and hamstring autograft (n = 1), and 2 utilized anteromedial drilling and 1 transtibial drilling. The mean time from primary ACLR to revision ACLR was 553 ± 372 days. Players with a history of ACLR were matched to controls with no history of ACLR based on demographic and performance data (Appendix Table A1). The only difference preoperatively between groups was that controls averaged more hits per at bat than cases (0.27 vs 0.24, respectively; P = .011). When comparing postoperative performance metrics in cases to performance after the index year in controls, no significant difference existed in any of the performance metrics between cases and controls (Appendix Table A2). Furthermore, no significant difference existed between cases and controls with regard to the overall RTS rate, progression to a higher level, or level at which cases or controls returned to sport (P = .684). The performance metrics for players with a history of ACLR were then compared from before their ACL tear to after ACLR. No significant difference in any of the primary outcomes existed between preoperative and postoperative performance (Appendix Table A3). There were 2 secondary performance metrics (home runs per year by pitchers [declined] and number of triples per year by batters [improved]) that differed after surgery.
TABLE A3

Performance Metrics Before and After Surgery

Mean Difference (Pre- – Postoperative) P
Pitching statistics
 Win-loss percentage–4.60.425
 ERA–0.95.221
 Average runs–1.52.284
 WHIP–0.05.603
 Hits per 9 innings–1.02.081
 Home runs per 9 innings–0.18.059
 Walks allowed per 9 innings0.54.328
 Strikeouts per 9 innings0.81.060
 Strikeouts per walk–0.11.836
 Wins per year–2.17.421
 Losses per year–8.46.324
 Games per year–4.12.113
 Games started per year1.10.402
 Games finished per year–0.78.711
 Complete games per year–0.99.477
 Shutouts per year0.01.620
 Saves per year0.99.475
 Innings pitched per year–5.14.458
 Hits per year–15.41.055
 Runs per year–7.67.059
 Earned runs per year–6.81.060
 Home runs per year –1.73 .011
 Walks allowed per year–0.44.867
 Intentional walks per year–3.64.413
 Shutouts per year–0.39.936
 Hit batters per year0.52.457
 Balks per year–0.19.335
 Wild pitches per year0.23.735
 Batters faced per year–27.17.362
 WAR (pitchers)0.01.996
 FIP–0.02.966
Batting statistics
 Games per year–5.29.464
 Plate appearances per year–8.77.763
 At bats per year–11.41.659
 Runs per year2.52.528
 Hits per year–1.69.812
 Doubles per year–0.05.970
 Triples per year 0.77 .046
 Home runs per year–1.22.217
 Runs batted in per year1.22.701
Stolen bases per year 3.72 .016
Caught stealing per year 1.41 .013
 Walks per year0.18.949
 Strikeouts per year–2.05.714
 Total bases per year–10.08.548
 Double plays grounded into per year–0.62.536
 Hit by pitch per year–1.03.319
 Sacrifice hits per year–0.26.587
 Sacrifice flies per year–0.60.136
 Intentional walks per year–0.13.648
 Hits per at bat–0.01.293
 On-base percentage–0.01.573
 Slugging percentage–0.03.125
 On-base plus slugging percentage–0.04.166
 WAR (batters)0.19.603

Bolded values indicate statistical significance (P < .05). ERA, earned run average; FIP, fielding independent pitching; WAR, wins above replacement; WHIP, walks plus hits per inning pitched.

When the most common graft types (BTB and hamstring) and drilling techniques (anteromedial and transtibial) were compared, no significant difference existed in RTS rates or primary performance outcome measures between these players (Table 3). Graft types were then compared among players based on position (Table 4). Compared with all other positions, catchers were significantly more likely to undergo ACLR with a hamstring autograft (P = .023) and significantly less likely to undergo ACLR using a BTB autograft (P = .008).

Discussion

Although not as common in professional baseball players as injuries to the ulnar collateral ligament, ACL tears, and subsequently ACLR, have become more frequent among these elite athletes.[9,24] Our hypotheses were confirmed, as the RTS rate after ACLR was 80%, with no significant difference in RTS rates or performance upon RTS in the primary outcome performance variables of ERA, WHIP, FIP, and WAR between cases and controls. Furthermore, no difference in RTS rates or performance upon RTS existed between graft types or femoral drilling techniques. ACLR has become the gold standard treatment for ACL tears in athletes who wish to return to sport at a high level.[8,13] The RTS rate in this study was 80%, which is consistent with a prior study by Mai et al[24] that reported an RTS rate of 80% for MLB players undergoing ACLR. The study by Mai et al reported an RTS rate of 95.8% in National Hockey League (NHL), 82.4% in National Basketball Association (NBA), and 85.5% in National Football League (NFL) athletes after ACLR.[24] While some other sports involve more consistent cutting and pivoting, there is a significant amount of rotational force placed on the athlete’s knees while hitting in baseball as well as a quick change in direction needed when running the bases and at times when playing the field. The 80% RTS rate in this study is slightly lower than that in a prior study that looked at ACLR in professional baseball players over a 13-year period using publicly available data.[15] That prior study included 26 MLB position players who had undergone ACLR, while the current study included 124 players (both pitchers and position players in both minor and major leagues) and separated the results based on pitching and batting performance metrics. It is possible that the other study had a higher RTS rate because it only included MLB athletes who are presumably more skilled and have a greater financial incentive to return. Similar to the prior study, this study found no significant change in performance after ACLR in professional baseball players. Furthermore, when matched to control players, there was no difference in performance metrics in the current study. Hence, while players may decline with age, there does not appear to be a faster decline in players’ performance after ACLR compared with those who have not undergone ACLR. One finding that deserves attention is the difference in graft types when performing ACLR in catchers compared to all other positions. The most common graft in catchers was a hamstring autograft, while a BTB autograft was by far the most common graft among all other positions (>70% for all other positions). A recent review found a higher rate of anterior knee pain and kneeling pain in patients who underwent ACLR with BTB autograft compared with hamstring autograft.[27] As such, given the demands on the knees of catchers and the need to pop up from a squatting position to throw runners out, it is intuitive that the graft of choice in catchers is a hamstring rather than a BTB. Of late, there has been significant debate regarding femoral drilling techniques in ACLR. The current study found that 57% of players underwent ACLR using the anteromedial technique, while 38% underwent ACLR using the transtibial technique. Proponents of the anteromedial drilling technique often argue that the transtibial technique adequately restores anteroposterior translation of the knee but does not properly restore rotational control because the graft cannot be placed low enough on the wall.[16] Conversely, surgeons who drill transtibially cite recent studies that have shown higher rerupture rates when the graft is placed too low on the wall.[29] While studies can be found to support either technique, recent prospective randomized studies have found no difference in clinical outcomes between anteromedial and transtibial femoral drilling techniques.[23] This was echoed by the present study, as no difference in RTS rates or performance upon RTS was seen between transtibial and anteromedial drilling techniques. Hence, surgeons performing ACLR in these athletes should use the technique with which they are most familiar and technically comfortable, as the ability to technically execute ACLR well seems to be more important than the actual femoral drilling technique. Certainly, ACLR within professional baseball players may not represent the results of these drilling techniques within a community setting. One interesting finding from this study is that RTS rates, as well as performance upon RTS, did not differ between specific graft types (BTB autograft vs hamstring autograft). There have been many studies evaluating the difference in failure rates and RTS rates, among others, based on graft type in ACLR, but no study has definitively found one graft type to be superior to all others.[2,7,25] However, there have been several studies to date that have shown an increased failure rate, increased knee laxity, and a heightened immune response in allografts compared with autografts.[21,30-32] It is therefore interesting that 10 professional baseball players in this study underwent primary ACLR using allografts. Notably, 1 of these 10 players underwent revision ACLR during this study period, while only 2 of 114 players who underwent primary ACLR using an autograft underwent revision ACLR during the study period. While these numbers are too small to compare, it is our recommendation that in the setting of primary ACLR, an autograft should be the graft of choice in professional baseball players.

Limitations

This study did not use public data but rather used the MLB HITS database to ensure the accuracy of these patients’ data. Furthermore, all operative reports were reviewed to remove any possibility of including a player who did not undergo ACLR. While the HITS database was used, there is the possibility that some players who underwent ACLR were not entered into the database and were therefore missed. Furthermore, the exact timing of the injury was unknown so the risk of ACL tears in game situations could not be analyzed. The cases were matched best as possible to a group of controls, but differences between the groups could still exist. There was a lack of specific information regarding patients with meniscal or chondral damage that was addressed at the time of their ACLR to make a meaningful comparison between these players and those without concomitant injuries.

Conclusion

The RTS rate for professional baseball players after ACLR was 80%. No significant difference in performance metrics existed between BTB and hamstring autografts or between femoral drilling techniques. Furthermore, no significant difference in performance or RTS rates existed between cases and matched controls.
  32 in total

1.  Orthopedic Practice Patterns Relating to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Elite Athletes.

Authors:  Brandon J Erickson; Joshua D Harris; Yale A Fillingham; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Charles Bush-Joseph; Brian J Cole; Bernard R Bach; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)       Date:  2015-12

2.  Performance-Based Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Professional Athletes Differ Between Sports.

Authors:  Harry T Mai; Danielle S Chun; Andrew D Schneider; Brandon J Erickson; Ryan D Freshman; Benjamin Kester; Nikhil N Verma; Wellington K Hsu
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision.

Authors:  G B Maletis; M C S Inacio; J L Desmond; T T Funahashi
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  No clinical differences between anteromedial portal and transtibial technique for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter MacDonald; Chris Kim; Sheila McRae; Jeff Leiter; Ryan Khan; Daniel Whelan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice patterns by NFL and NCAA football team physicians.

Authors:  Brandon J Erickson; Joshua D Harris; Yale A Fillingham; Rachel M Frank; Charles A Bush-Joseph; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 4.772

6.  Change in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Choice and Outcomes Over Time.

Authors:  Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Timothy E Hewett; David C Flanigan; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Summative Report on Time Out of Play for Major and Minor League Baseball: An Analysis of 49,955 Injuries From 2011 Through 2016.

Authors:  Christopher L Camp; Joshua S Dines; Jelle P van der List; Stan Conte; Justin Conway; David W Altchek; Struan H Coleman; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Risk Factors and Predictors of Subsequent ACL Injury in Either Knee After ACL Reconstruction: Prospective Analysis of 2488 Primary ACL Reconstructions From the MOON Cohort.

Authors:  Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Return-to-Sport and Performance After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in National Basketball Association Players.

Authors:  Joshua D Harris; Brandon J Erickson; Bernard R Bach; Geoffrey D Abrams; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Brian Forsythe; Frank M McCormick; Anil K Gupta; Brian J Cole
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.843

10.  Thirty-Year Experience With ACL Reconstruction Using Patellar Tendon: A Critical Evaluation of Revision and Reoperation.

Authors:  Andrew J Riff; Timothy J Luchetti; Alexander E Weber; Jaskarndip Chahal; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2017-08-29
View more
  1 in total

1.  Do Injury Rates in Position Players Who Convert to Pitchers in Professional Baseball Differ From Players Who Have Always Been Pitchers?

Authors:  Brandon J Erickson; Peter N Chalmers; John D'Angelo; Kevin Ma; Dana Rowe; Christopher S Ahmad
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-10-25
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.