Workload Comparison of Contemporary Interval Throwing Programs and a Novel Optimized Program for Baseball Pitchers

# Background In the rehabilitation of injured baseball pitchers, there is lack of consensus on how to guide a player back to pitching. It is unknown how different contemporary interval throwing programs (ITPs) progress in the amount of throwing workload. # Purposes To 1) evaluate three prominent ITPs commonly employed in baseball pitcher rehabilitation and assess whether these ITPs produce training loads that increase in a controlled, graduated manner and 2) devise an ITP that produced training loads which increased steadily over time. # Study Design Cross-sectional study # Methods Three publicly available ITPs from prominent sports medicine institutions were analyzed. Elbow varus torque per throw was calculated from a 2^nd^ order polynomial regression based upon a relationship between recorded torque measurements and throwing distance measured from a database of 111,196 throws. The relative rate of workload increase was measured as an acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR). For each ITP, throw counts, daily/acute/chronic workloads, and ACWR were calculated and plotted over time. Finally, an original ITP was devised based upon a computational model that gradually increases ACWR over time and finished with an optimal chronic workload. # Results Each ITP exhibited a unique progression of throwing distances, quantities, and days to create different workload profiles. The three ITPs had throwing schedules ranging from 136 days to 187 days, ACWR spiked above or fell below a literature-defined "safe" range (i.e. 0.7 -- 1.3) 19, 21, and 23 times. A novel ITP, predicated on a 146-day schedule and with a final chronic workload of 14.2, was designed to have no spikes outside of the safe range. # Conclusion Existing ITPs widely utilized for rehabilitation of baseball pitchers exhibit significantly inconsistent variation in the rate of throwing load progression. Computational modeling may facilitate more incremental workload progression in ITPs, thereby reducing injury during rehabilitation and more efficiently condition a pitcher for return to competition. # Level of Evidence 3

Analysis of patient-directed search content and online resource quality for ulnar collateral ligament injury and surgery

Background: Patients use the Internet to learn information about injuries, yet online content remains largely unstudied. This study analyzed patient questions posed online regarding ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears or UCL surgical management. Methods: Three separate search strings about UCL tear and UCL surgery were queried on the Google search engine. The 300 most commonly asked questions were compiled for each topic and associated webpage information was collected from the “People also ask” section. Questions were categorized using the Rothwell classification and webpages by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Results: The most frequent UCL tear questions were “how long does it take to heal a torn UCL?” and “what is nonsurgical treatment for the UCL?” The most frequent UCL surgery question was “can you retear your UCL after surgery?” The Rothwell classification of questions for UCL tear/UCL surgery was 55%/32% policy, 38%/57% fact, and 7%/11% value with highest subcategories being indications/management (46%/25%) and technical details (24%/25%). The most common webpages were academic (39%/29%) and medical practice (24%/26%). Mean JAMA score for all 600 webpages was low (1.2), with journals (mean = 3.4) having the highest score. Medical practice (mean = 0.5) and legal websites (mean = 0.0) had the lowest JAMA scores. Only 30% of webpages provided UCL-specific information. Conclusion: Online UCL patient questions commonly pertain to technical details and injury management. Webpages suggested by search engines contain information specific to UCL tears and surgery only one-third of the time. The quality of most webpages provided to patients is poor, with minimal source transparency