Preventive interventions for throwing injuries in baseball players: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder and elbow pain are the common complaints associated with throwing injuries in baseball players. Prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of stretching in increasing posterior shoulder flexibility or strengthening the external rotator muscles as preventive strategies for throwing injuries in baseball players have been published. However, there are limited reviews highlighting the role of preventive interventions for throwing injuries in baseball players. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to summarize the existing literature on preventive interventions for throwing injuries in baseball players. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases on 3 March 2023. Two independent reviewers screened the studies based on the eligibility criteria. We extracted existing literature on preventive interventions and effectiveness for throwing injuries in baseball players, and participants' characteristics and results were extracted from the studies. This scoping review was performed in accordance with the Extended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded 1170 articles, four of which met the eligibility criteria. Of the included studies, two were randomized controlled trials, and the remaining two were prospective cohort studies. Eligible studies targeted youth-to high school-level players and focused on preventive programs for throwing injuries that manifest in the upper extremities of baseball players. The outcome measure most commonly used to quantify the effectiveness of prevention programs was the incidence of shoulder and elbow injuries, although the definitions vary among studies. The prevention program included sleeper stretching, shoulder external rotation strengthening exercises, and comprehensive prevention programs (focusing on improving the elbow, shoulder, and hip range of motion; rotator cuff and periscapular muscle strength; posture; and lower extremity balance). Each prevention program was reported to have the potential to reduce the incidence of throwing injuries in baseball players, and two studies suggested that high compliance with the program led to a lower injury risk. CONCLUSION: This scoping review confirmed the presence of studies that examined preventive interventions for throwing injuries in baseball players. Preventive interventions that may reduce throwing injuries in baseball players include sleeper stretching, shoulder external rotation strengthening exercises, and comprehensive prevention programs. However, the characteristics of participants (eg, age, sports level, and position) and the definition of injury varied among previous studies. Injury profiles and prevention strategies may differ according to age, sport level, and position of players, and more studies are needed to prove this issue.

Does physiotherapy after rotator cuff repair require supervision by a physical therapist?: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A supervised physiotherapy program (SPP) is a standard regimen after surgical rotator cuff repair (RCR); however, the effect of a home-based exercise program (HEP), as an alternative, on postoperative functional recovery remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the functional effects of SPP and HEP after RCR. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including Central, Medline, and Embase in April 2022. The primary outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, and pain score. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, muscle strength, retear rate, and patient satisfaction rate. A meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine the significance. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded 848 records, five of which met our criteria. Variables at 3 months after surgery were successfully analyzed, including the Constant score (mean difference, -8.51 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -32.72 to 15.69; P=0.49) and pain score (mean difference, 0.02 cm; 95% CI, -2.29 to 2.33; P=0.99). There were no significant differences between the SPP and HEP. Other variables were not analyzed owing to the lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed no significant differences between SSP and HEP with regard to the Constant and pain scores at 3 months after RCR. These results suggest that HEP may be an alternative regimen after RCR. Level of evidence: I.

Effects of elevation on shoulder joint motion: comparison of dynamic and static conditions.

BACKGROUND: Although visual examination and palpation are used to assess shoulder motion in clinical practice, there is no consensus on shoulder motion under dynamic and static conditions. This study aimed to compare shoulder joint motion under dynamic and static conditions. METHODS: The dominant arm of 14 healthy adult males was investigated. Electromagnetic sensors attached to the scapular, thorax, and humerus were used to measure three-dimensional shoulder joint motion under dynamic and static elevation conditions and compare scapular upward rotation and glenohumeral joint elevation in different elevation planes and angles. RESULTS: At 120° of elevation in the scapular and coronal planes, the scapular upward rotation angle was higher in the static condition and the glenohumeral joint elevation angle was higher in the dynamic condition (P<0.05). In scapular plane and coronal plane elevation 90°- 120°, the angular change in scapular upward rotation was higher in the static condition and the angular change in scapulohumeral joint elevation was higher in the dynamic condition (P<0.05). No differences were found in shoulder joint motion in the sagittal plane elevation between the dynamic and static conditions. No interaction effects were found between elevation condition and elevation angle in all elevation planes. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in shoulder joint motion should be noted when assessing shoulder joint motion in different dynamic and static conditions. Level of evidence: Level III, diagnostic cross-sectional study.

Shoulder pain in wheelchair basketball athletes: A scoping review.

CONTEXT: Wheelchair basketball athletes have increased upper limb stress, which frequently leads to shoulder pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize the existing literature on shoulder pain in wheelchair basketball athletes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PEDro databases for studies performed between January 1990 and February 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants' characteristics and results were extracted from the study. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded 2455 articles, 11 of which met the inclusion criteria. This review included seven studies in its final analysis; among them, seven determined the prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain, five investigated the factors and mechanisms contributing to shoulder pain, and two reported the treatment and preventive measures. The prevalence of shoulder pain in wheelchair basketball players ranged from 38%-75%, and the incidence of shoulder pain was 14%. Factors/mechanisms included overuse, decreased trunk control, and driving posture. Treatment/preventive measures consisted of shoulder and scapular muscle strengthening and stretching exercises. However, the literature on treatment/prevention was scarce, and its effectiveness was unclear. CONCLUSION: This scoping review confirmed the high prevalence of shoulder pain in wheelchair basketball players; despite this, studies regarding treatment or preventive measures remain lacking. Further studies investigating the mechanism of onset of shoulder pain and the effectiveness of therapeutic and preventive measures are needed in the future.

Clinical outcomes in patients with retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff retear is a major concern after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR); however, the effects of retear remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of postoperative retear and intact tendons after ARCR. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PEDro databases for studies performed from January 2000 to June 2020. Clinical outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder (UCLA) score, pain score, range of motion, and muscle strength. Meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine significance. RESULTS: The initial database search yielded 3141 records. After removal of duplicates, 26 of which met the inclusion criteria. Patients in the retear group had significantly lower Constant score [- 8.51 points (95% CI, - 10.29 to - 6.73); P < 0.001], ASES score [- 12.53 points (95% CI, - 16.27 to - 8.79); P < 0.001], UCLA score [- 3.77 points (95% CI, - 4.72 to - 2.82); P < 0.001], and significantly higher pain score [0.56 cm (95% CI, 0.10 to 1.01); P = 0.02] than the intact group. In addition, the retear group had significantly lower flexion [- 10.46° (95% CI, - 19.86 to - 1.07); P = 0.03], abduction [- 14.84° (95% CI, - 28.55 to - 1.14); P = 0.03], and external rotation [- 7.22° (95% CI, - 13.71 to - 0.74); P = 0.03] range of motion, and flexion [- 1.65 kg·f (95% CI, - 2.29 to - 1.01); P < 0.001], abduction [- 1.87 kg·f (95% CI, - 3.02 to - 0.72); P = 0.001], and external rotation [- 1.66 kg·f (95% CI, - 3.25 to - 0.07); P = 0.04] muscle strength. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that retear after ARCR leads to poor clinical outcomes after surgery.

Combination of risk factors affecting retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a decision tree analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several risk factors for postoperative retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) have been cited in a large number of reports; various combinations of these seem to be present in the clinical setting. PURPOSE: Using a combination model for decision tree analysis, we aimed to investigate the combination of risk factors that affect postoperative retear the most. METHODS: A total of 286 patients who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 6 months after surgery were included in this study. Based on the structural integrity of the MR images taken 6 months after surgery, the patients were divided into a healed group (intact tendon, 254 patients) and a retear group (ruptured tendon, 32 patients). Using univariate and decision tree analyses, we selected a combination of 11 risk factors that drastically affected postoperative retear. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.9 ± 7.1 years, and the mean symptom duration was 9.7 ± 11.6 months. The tear was small/medium in 177 patients and large/massive in 109 patients. The technique for surgical repair was single row in 42 patients, double row in 60 patients, and suture bridging in 216 patients. On univariate analysis, both groups had significant differences in the anteroposterior (AP) tear size (P < .0001), mediolateral tear size (P < .0001), hyperlipidemia (P = .0178), global fatty degeneration index (P < .0001), supraspinatus fatty degeneration stage (P < .0001), and critical shoulder angle (CSA) (P = .0015). All of these 5 risk factors, except for mediolateral tear size, were selected as candidates for the decision tree analysis. Eight combination patterns were determined to have prediction probabilities that ranged from 4.3% to 86.1%. In particular, the combination of an AP tear size of ≥40 mm, hyperlipidemia, and a CSA of ≥37° affected retear after ARCR the most. CONCLUSIONS: Decision tree analysis lead to the extraction of different retear factor combinations, which were divided into 5 retear groups. The worst combination was of AP tear size ≥40 mm, hyperlipidemia, and CSA ≥37°, and the prediction probability of this combination was 86.2%. Therefore, our data may offer a new index for the prediction of retear after ARCR.

Clinical results of conservative management in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tear: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews have reported on the conservative treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; however, clinical results of this treatment still remain determined. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials and observational studies. Two independent researchers reviewed a total of 2,981 articles, 28 of which met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Clinical outcome measures included Constant score, visual analog scale score for pain, range of motion, and short-form 36 questionnaires. The meta-analysis used a linear mixed model weighted with the variance of the estimate. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a significant improvement after surgery. Pain score is 26.2 mm (1 month) to 26.4 mm (3 months), and 24.8 mm (12 months) (P<0.05); active abduction: 153.2º (2 months), 159.0º (6 months), 168.1º (12 months) (P<0.05); Constant score: 67.8 points (2 months) to 77.2 points (12 months) (P<0.05); short-form 36 questionnaires "vitality" section: 57.0 points (6 months) to 70.0 points (12 months) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirmed the effectiveness of conservative treatment in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears 12 months post-intervention. The results suggest that conservative treatment for patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears should be the first line of treatment before considering surgery.

Usefulness of Shoulder36 in rotator cuff tears: Comparison with Simple Shoulder Test.

BACKGROUND: In patients with rotator cuff tears, Shoulder36 (Sh36) was compared to the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) to determine a broader use of Sh36 worldwide. METHODS: Sh36, SST, "Constant score," and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA) were used to evaluate 230 patients (male, 116; female, 114) during the first visit, analyzed by staff blinded to the study. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between the Constant score and each domain in Sh36 was as follows: r = 0.68 (vs. pain, p < 0.01); r = 0.69 (vs. range of motion, p < 0.01); r = 0.74 (vs. muscle strength, p < 0.01); r = 0.62 (vs. general health, p < 0.01); r = 0.66 (vs. ability of daily living, p < 0.01); and r = 0.65 (vs. ability for sports, p < 0.01). The correlation coefficient between the JOA and each domain in Sh36 was as follows: r = 0.76 (vs. pain, p < 0.01); r = 0.73 (vs. range of motion, p < 0.01); r = 0.78 (vs. muscle strength, p < 0.01); r = 0.68 (vs. general health, p < 0.01); r = 0.71 (vs. ability of daily living, p < 0.01); and r = 0.70 (vs. ability for sports, p < 0.01). The correlation coefficient between the SST and each domain in Sh36 was as follows: r = 0.73 (vs. pain, p < 0.01); r = 0.70 (vs. range of motion, p < 0.01); r = 0.75 (vs. muscle strength, p < 0.01); r = 0.67 (vs. general health, p < 0.01); r = 0.69 (vs. ability of daily living, p < 0.01); and r = 0.64 (vs. ability for sports, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A strong association exists between the SST and each domain in the Sh36, in patients with rotator cuff tears ( r = 0.64-0.73), suggesting the usefulness of Sh36 for patient-based scoring.

Factors Affecting Return to Work in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

OBJECTIVE: Although clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair are generally favorable, postoperative return to work is also an important issue. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes and clarify the factors affecting return to work in patients who had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: In total, 63 patients who had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were included in this study. Clinical assessment was performed using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, along with measurements of pain, range of motion, muscle strength, cuff integrity, and fatty infiltration. Depending on their return-to-work status at the final follow-up, subjects were assigned to either the complete return group (the patient returned to work) or the incomplete return group (the patient had quit or had changed their occupation at final follow-up). Various clinical parameters affecting the return to work outcome were examined through univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 63 subjects, 42 belonged to the complete return group and 21 belonged to the incomplete return group. Therefore, the working capability recovery rate following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was 66.7%. Both groups showed significant improvement from their preoperative status, but there were statistically significant differences in JOA scores between the groups at 9 and 12 months postoperatively (P <0.01). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that heavy work and female sex were significantly adversely associated with return to work (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: The working capability recovery rate following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was 66.7%, and the preoperative factors affecting recovery of working capability were heavy work and female sex.