Decreased Lower Extremity Functional Movement Scores as a Predictor for Elbow Injury in Professional Baseball Pitchers

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. e241-e242
Author(s):  
Braden K. Mayer ◽  
Ellen Shanley ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Thomas J. Noonan
2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 2214-2219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Noonan ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Lane B. Bailey ◽  
Douglas J. Wyland ◽  
Michael Kissenberth ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1220-1225
Author(s):  
John Mayberry ◽  
Scott Mullen ◽  
Scott Murayama

Background: The incidence rate of elbow injuries has been rising in recent years among professional baseball pitchers. Determining valid screening procedures that allow practitioners to identify pitchers at an increased risk of such injuries is therefore of critical importance. Purpose: To validate the use of countermovement jump (CMJ) tests as a diagnostic tool for pitcher conditioning. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: More than 500 pitchers at a single professional baseball organization performed preseason CMJ assessments on a force plate before the 2013 to 2018 seasons. Three measurements were extracted from ground-reaction force data during the test: eccentric rate of force development (ERFD), average vertical concentric force (AVCF), and concentric vertical impulse (CVI). Athletic trainers at the organization collected detailed information on elbow and shoulder injury rates as well as workload (pitch count) throughout the rest of the season. Poisson regression models were fit to investigate the dependency of injury rates on CMJ test performance. Results: ERFD, CVI, and AVCF were all significant predictors of elbow injury risk after accounting for pitcher age, weight, and workload. The analysis identified 3 specific indicators of heightened risk based on the results of a CMJ scan: low ERFD, a combination of low AVCF and high CVI, and a combination of high AVCF and low CVI. In contrast, shoulder injury risk was roughly independent of all 3 CMJ test measurements. Conclusion: This study supports the hypothesis of the entire kinetic chain’s involvement in pitching by establishing a link between CMJ test performance and elbow injury risk in professional baseball pitchers. CMJ assessment may be a powerful addition to injury risk alert and prevention protocols. Pitchers in high-risk groups can be prescribed specific exercise plans to improve movement imbalances.


2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (7) ◽  
pp. 1368-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam W. Anz ◽  
Brandon D. Bushnell ◽  
Leah Passmore Griffin ◽  
Thomas J. Noonan ◽  
Michael R. Torry ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596711982562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takanori Oi ◽  
Shinichi Yoshiya ◽  
Jon Slowik ◽  
Alek Diffendaffer ◽  
Yohei Takagi ◽  
...  

Background: Although baseball injuries are common in both Japan and the United States, the majority of pitching injuries in Japanese players occur at the shoulder, whereas most pitching injuries in American players occur at the elbow. A biomechanical comparison between Japanese and American pitchers may help to identify the different injury mechanisms. Hypothesis: Japanese pitchers produce greater shoulder kinetics whereas American pitchers generate greater elbow kinetics. Also, kinematic differences will be found between the 2 groups, including longer stride and greater lead knee flexion for Japanese pitchers. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Biomechanical data for 19 Japanese professional baseball pitchers and an age-matched group of 19 American professional baseball pitchers were collected by use of a 3-dimensional, automated, high-speed optical motion capture system. Anthropometric, kinetic, and kinematic data for both groups were compared by use of t tests ( P < .05). Results: American pitchers were taller and heavier and generated greater ball velocity (38.1 ± 1.6 vs 34.7 ± 1.1 m/s; P < .001) than their Japanese counterparts. Most elbow and shoulder kinetic parameters, including elbow varus torque (99 ± 17 vs 86 ± 17 N·m; P = .018), were greater for American pitchers. However, when normalized by bodyweight and height, shoulder horizontal adduction torque was greater for Japanese pitchers (6.8% ± 1.0% vs 5.8% ± 1.1%; P = .005). Japanese pitchers had longer stride (86% ± 5% vs 82% ± 6% of height; P = .023), greater shoulder abduction at ball release (101° ± 8° vs 94° ± 9°; P = .014), and greater knee flexion after ball release (39° ± 18° vs 28° ± 14°; P = .039). Japanese pitchers also demonstrated greater shoulder internal rotation velocity, elbow flexion, and elbow extension velocity. Conclusion: Greater elbow varus torque may predispose American pitchers to greater risk of elbow injury. Japanese pitchers may have increased risk of shoulder injury due to greater normalized horizontal adduction torque and greater abduction angle. Japanese pitchers may be able to reduce their shoulder torque and risk of injury by shortening their stride, reducing their lead knee flexion, and decreasing their throwing arm abduction. Clinical Relevance: Understanding anthropometric, kinetic, and kinematic differences between pitchers from the 2 countries may be of value to clinicians and coaches working to maximize performance of the pitchers while minimizing the risk of injury.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Young Park ◽  
Seung-Jun Lee ◽  
Yong-Il Kim ◽  
Gu-Yeon Heo

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 2075-2081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin E. Wilk ◽  
Leonard C. Macrina ◽  
Glenn S. Fleisig ◽  
Kyle T. Aune ◽  
Ron A. Porterfield ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (14) ◽  
pp. 3358-3367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael F. Escamilla ◽  
Glenn S. Fleisig ◽  
Dave Groeschner ◽  
Ken Akizuki

Background: In professional baseball pitchers, pitching biomechanics have not been examined for the slider, and the only known study for the curveball and changeup examined limited kinetics. Moreover, no known studies have investigated pitching biomechanics between strikes and balls. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare pitching biomechanics in professional baseball pitchers among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup and between balls and strikes. It was hypothesized that pitching kinematics and kinetics would be similar among the slider, fastball, and curveball; shoulder and elbow forces and torques would be significantly lower in the changeup; and pitching biomechanics would be similar between balls and strikes. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Among 18 professional baseball pitchers, 38 reflective markers were positioned on the body and each player threw 32 to 40 maximum effort pitches—consisting of the fastball, curveball, slider, and changeup pitch types—from a regulation mound to a catcher. The markers were tracked by 18 high-speed 180-Hz cameras, and data were processed and run through a computer program to calculate 25 kinematic parameters, 7 kinetic parameters, and 4 temporal parameters for each pitch type and for both strikes and balls. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance ( P < .01) was used to assess pitching biomechanical differences among pitch type and pitch result (balls vs strikes). Results: During arm cocking, elbow varus torque was 8% to 9% greater in the fastball and slider compared with the changeup, shoulder horizontal adduction torque was 17% to 20% greater in the slider and curveball compared with the changeup, and shoulder anterior force was 13% greater in the curveball compared with the changeup. During arm deceleration, elbow flexor torque was 9% to 14% greater in the fastball compared with the curveball and changeup, and elbow and shoulder proximal forces were 10% to 14% greater in the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup. At ball release, forward trunk tilt was 16% to 19% greater in the fastball and curveball compared with the changeup, contralateral trunk tilt was 26% to 41% greater in the curveball compared with the slider and changeup, knee flexion was 18% greater in the changeup compared with the fastball, and the knee extended 7° more from lead foot contact to ball release in the fastball compared with the changeup. During arm cocking, pelvis angular velocity was 7% to 8% greater in the fastball compared with the curveball and changeup, and upper trunk angular velocity was 5% greater in the fastball compared with the changeup. During arm acceleration, shoulder internal rotation angular velocity was 6% to 7% greater in the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup, and ball velocity at ball release was 11% to 18% greater in the fastball compared with the slider, changeup, and curveball and 6% greater in the slider compared with the curveball. For all the kinematic, kinetic, and temporal parameters, analysis showed no significant differences between balls and strikes and no significant interactions between pitch type and pitch result. Conclusion: Nearly all kinetic differences among pitch types occurred between the changeup and the remaining 3 pitch types. Shoulder and elbow forces and torques and injury risk were greater among the fastball, slider, and curveball compared with the changeup but were similar among the fastball, slider, and curveball. Body segment and joint positions were similar among all pitch types at lead foot contact and at maximum shoulder external rotation; however, at ball release, throwing a fastball and curveball resulted in greater knee extension and more forward and contralateral trunk tilt compared with throwing a changeup and slider. Movement speeds for the pelvis, upper trunk, and shoulder were greatest in the fastball and least in the changeup and were generally similar among the fastball, slider, and curveball. The timing of when pelvis, upper trunk, elbow, and shoulder velocities occurred among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup was similar, and no kinematic or kinetic differences were noted between throwing balls and strikes. Clinical Relevance: The results from the current study will help clinicians understand differences in pitching biomechanics in professional baseball pitchers among the fastball, slider, curveball, and changeup; the study provides limited insight into shoulder and elbow injury risk associated with different types of pitches.


2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 728-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon D. Bushnell ◽  
Adam W. Anz ◽  
Thomas J. Noonan ◽  
Michael R. Torry ◽  
Richard J. Hawkins

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (7_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967115S0008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Noonan ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Lane Brooks Bailey ◽  
Douglas J. Wyland ◽  
Michael J. Kissenberth ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document