Background: The Pitch Smart guidelines aim to limit youth baseball pitching behaviors associated with overuse injuries. Despite many youth baseball leagues being compliant with the guidelines, during tournaments, pitch count restrictions or guidelines are often not followed. Purpose: To perform a quantitative analysis of pitch counts in youth baseball players and evaluate compliance with regard to the Pitch Smart guidelines in the tournament setting. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included in the analysis were 100 youth baseball teams that competed in the 8-and-under to 14-and-under age divisions during the 2019 tournament season. Pitching data were compared with the Pitch Smart guidelines. Violations were identified as (1) exceeding maximum daily pitch count, (2) inadequate rest between pitching events, and (3) pitching more than 1 event on the same day. Pitcher and game factors were analyzed for possible relationships to guideline violations using mixed-effects negative binomial regression models, with comparisons of violations using rate ratios (RRs). Results: Analysis included 1046 pitchers and 2439 games. There were 1866 total Pitch Smart guideline violations, with 48.6% of pitchers having at least 1 violation. Inadequate rest was the most common reason for violation, with noncompliance occurring in 43.3% of pitchers. The highest rate of any violation (0.32 per appearance) occurred in the 8-and-under age division. High-volume pitchers had increased violation rates in each category compared with low-volume pitchers ( P < .001). Violation rates were increased more than twice the rate when pitchers participated in ≥5 consecutive games without a rest day when compared with a single game (RR, 2.48; P < .001). Conclusion: Noncompliance with Pitch Smart guidelines in tournament settings occurred in more than 90% of teams and almost half of all pitchers. Factors associated with noncompliance included younger pitcher age, high-volume pitching, and pitching in multiple consecutive games. Education of tournament directors, coaches, parents, and athletes regarding pitching guidelines is warranted in order to limit the risk of injury.

Background: Softball is a popular sport among youth female athletes. While youth baseball has well-established, evidence-based pitching guidelines, youth softball pitching guidelines lack both evidence and enforcement. Adherence to pitch count limits in youth softball is infrequent and results in pitchers with exceedingly high pitching volumes. Methods: Pitch counts for youth fast-pitch softball teams competing for 1 consecutive year between January 2018 to December 2019 in age groups 8 and under (8U) to 14 and under (14U) were collected. Pitching volume was assessed based on individual games, single calendar days, and tournaments in which games are played on 2 or more consecutive days. Pitchers on teams were subdivided based on pitch count volumes and compared using a logarithmic transformation and geometric mean. Results: Data was collected for 10 teams from each age division resulting in analysis of 538 pitchers on 70 teams. The average pitcher threw 813 pitches per year and appeared in 20.0% of games while the average highest volume pitcher threw 2500 pitches per year and appeared in 54.5% of games. On average, the highest volume pitcher on each team threw 40% of all team pitches, while the 3 highest volume pitchers combined threw 82% of all team pitches. The average and high-volume pitcher threw pitches in 2 or more games on the same day in 37.5% and 48.6% of possible games while pitching 2 or more consecutive days in 64.0% and 79.6% of possible games, respectively. Conclusions: Softball pitchers throw high volumes of pitches while also pitching multiple days consecutively. A disparity among pitchers on softball teams exists as 40% of team pitches are thrown by 1 player and over 80% of team pitches are thrown by the top 3 pitchers. These high-volume pitchers may be engaging in unsustainable pitching practices that could predispose to injury. Level of Evidence: Level IV—cross-sectional.

Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) repair is discouraged for the treatment of chronic, recurrent patellar instability (RPI) because of high reported failure rates. However, the senior author uses MPFL repair for chronic RPI in the setting of low tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance. In this retrospective case series, we report results and evaluate outcome predictors. We used billing records to identify all patients, 14 years or older, who underwent isolated repair for chronic RPI performed by a single surgeon between September 2010 and February 2019. The TT-TG distance, patellar height (Caton-Deschamps Index [CDI]), and trochlear depth were measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging; postoperative reports were reviewed; and post hoc Kuala scores were obtained to extend outcome length. Patellar dislocation or revision surgery was considered a failure. Nonfailures were categorized as excellent or fair, based on the most recent report. Univariable generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate associations of predictors (radiographic parameters, age, ligamentous laxity, primary presenting complaint) with failure and/or success. A total of 93 isolated MPFL repairs were performed. After exclusions were made for workers' compensation insurance (n=4), substance abuse (n=3), major secondary trauma less than 3 months postoperatively (n=3), and follow-up of less than 12 months (n=42), 41 knees (38 patients) had median follow-up of 32 months (interquartile range, 19–48 months). All repairs were patellar sided. Outcomes for 4 knees were considered failures, 23 were excellent, and 14 were fair. Only increased CDI was associated with increased risk of failure (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.98–2.92; P =.06). Mean CDI was 1.23 mm (SD, 0.13 mm) for failures vs 1.08 mm (SD, 0.16 mm) for nonfailures. Failure rate was less than 10% following patellar-sided MPFL repair for treatment of chronic RPI among patients with low TT-TG distance. Increased patellar height was associated with higher risk of failure. [ Orthopedics . 2022;45(1):e23–e29.]