Direct Comparison of Modified Jobe and Docking Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction at Midterm Follow

The modified Jobe and docking techniques are the 2 most commonly employed techniques for ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction among overhead athletes. However, no study has directly compared these techniques performed by a single surgeon. Current comparisons of these techniques have relied solely on systematic reviews and biomechanical studies. There will be no difference in outcomes or return to play between the modified Jobe and docking techniques in elbow UCL reconstruction surgery. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Twenty-five modified Jobe and 26 docking UCL-reconstructive surgical procedures were performed by a single surgeon, each with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) score, Conway Scale, years played, sex, handedness, sport, position, palmaris versus gracilis graft type, concomitant or future arm/shoulder injuries, and need for additional surgery were compared between the groups. Patients who underwent future shoulder or elbow surgery, no matter the cause, were included. No difference was seen between the modified Jobe and docking reconstruction cases in regard to KJOC scores (mean ± SD: 78.4 ± 19.5 vs 72.0 ± 26.0, P = .44), Conway Scale (return to play, any level: 84% vs 82%, P = .61), years played (14.7 ± 6.2 vs 15.2 ± 5.8, P = .52), sex (P = .67), handedness (P ≥ .999), sport (P = .44), position (P = .60), level of competition (P = .59), and future surgery (12% vs 4%, P = .35). Palmaris graft type had significantly higher KJOC scores than hamstring grafts (82.3 ± 20.0 vs 57.9 ± 21.2, P = .001). The mean follow-up was 6.1 years in the modified Jobe group and 7.3 years in the docking group (mean = 6.7, P = .47). The modified Jobe and docking techniques are both suitable surgical options for elbow UCL reconstruction. There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques in regard to return to play, KJOC score, or need for subsequent surgery at 6.7-year follow-up. This is the first direct clinical comparison of these 2 techniques by a single surgeon at midterm follow-up