Injuries to the latissimus dorsi and teres major muscles, while rare, are debilitating. They are seen in a variety of sports, although disproportionately in the throwing shoulder of baseball pitchers. There have been 25 case reports and 2 case series published on the nonoperative and operative management of these injuries. Latissimus dorsi and teres major muscle anatomy, function, and common injury patterns are well described in these case reports. Also well detailed are the typical patient presentation, physical examination, and imaging findings. Latissimus dorsi tendon injuries are sometimes treated operatively, whereas latissimus dorsi muscle belly or isolated teres major injuries are treated nonoperatively. Nonoperative treatment includes oral anti-inflammatories and shoulder physical therapy. A number of surgical patient positions, approaches, and fixation constructs have been described, although 2 techniques of positioning and surgical approach are used most commonly. Fixation is most often performed with suture anchors. Return-to-play timing, shoulder strength, and healing on magnetic resonance imaging are variable. No standard of care currently exists for the treatment of latissimus dorsi or teres major injuries. If treating a patient with an injury to either muscle, the clinician should be familiar with accumulated experience as reported in the published literature.

The “Docking Plus” technique for elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) surgery is described in the following text and video. Depite the general success of UCL surgery, significant rates of retear and failure of return to competition persist. Hypothesized reasons for UCL surgery failure include insufficient graft strength (midsubstance tears), insufficient graft tensioning (functional UCL insufficiency, valgus extension overload), and insufficient healing of graft to bone (proximal avulsions). This technique is meant to incorporate the best aspects of the previously described techniques for UCL reconstruction to create a larger, stronger, better-tensioned graft with a larger healing surface area to bone, a lower retear rate, and a lower risk of complications. The Docking Plus technique has been used since 2012.

BackgroundThis retrospective case series examined 324 athletes who received elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction by a single surgeon in a private practice over a 9-year period. The novel Docking Plus technique for elbow UCL reconstruction in 324 athletes provided good or excellent Conway score results in 88% of patients. The preponderance of previous studies examining UCL reconstruction outcomes were performed by surgeons at one of only three institutions (Andrews Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, Kerlan Jobe Orthopedic Clinic).MethodsPatients undergoing UCL reconstruction from November 2005 to December 2014 were identified and contacted with a mailed survey and phone call. These patients were given a subjective 19 question survey assessing their outcomes from surgery.ResultsThe participants who responded to our survey were 90% male and 77% baseball players, 73% of which were pitchers. Of the baseball players who responded, 51.9% were in high school at the time of their surgery, 37% college, 6.5% minor leagues, and 2.2% in Major League Baseball. After surgery, 36% of survey responders returned to a higher level of competition than previously. For example, a high school athlete who had UCL reconstruction and went on to pitch in college. Further, 45% returned to the same level, and 7% returned to a lower level. Subjective “satisfaction,” was reported in 92% of responders and 97.2% reported that, “having surgery was a good idea.” Symptom onset in the responding athletes was 58.9% sudden, and 41.1% gradual. Overall, 90.9% of respondents returned to play in less than 1.5 years while 6.3% never were able to return. Re-tear occurred in 2.5% of patients, while 8.8% had subjective nerve dysfunction for at least 3 months following surgery.ConclusionThe Docking Plus technique can produce excellent subjective and objective results in athletes. Further study is warranted to see the effects of this procedure in other settings and determine which method of reconstruction or repair is superior.