What Can a Jump Tell Us About Elbow Injuries in Professional Baseball Pitchers?

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.

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 232596711986673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon J. Erickson ◽  
Peter N. Chalmers ◽  
John Zajac ◽  
Terrance Sgroi ◽  
Jonathan James Eno ◽  
...  

Background: There are many risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in professional baseball pitchers. The elbow carrying angle has not been studied as a potential risk factor. Purpose/Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to determine whether elbow carrying angle is a risk factor for shoulder or elbow injuries in professional baseball pitchers. We hypothesized that pitchers with a higher elbow carrying angle would be less likely to sustain an injury during the season than pitchers with a lower elbow carrying angle. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All professional pitchers for a single baseball club during the 2018 season had the carrying angle of both elbows measured at spring training by a single examiner. The pitchers were followed prospectively throughout the season. Shoulder and elbow injuries were recorded prospectively. Results: A total of 52 pitchers (21 [40%] Major League Baseball and 31 [60%] Minor League Baseball) were included. During the season, 23 (44%) pitchers became injured. The mean carrying angle in the throwing arm was 12.5° ± 4.2° versus 9.9° ± 2.8° in the nonthrowing arm ( P < .001). Comparing the injured and noninjured groups, there were no differences in level of play ( P = .870), throwing hand dominance ( P = .683), batting hand dominance ( P = .554), throwing-side carrying angle ( P = .373), nonthrowing-side carrying angle ( P = .773), or side-to-side difference in carrying angle ( P = .481). Conclusion: The elbow carrying angle was not associated with an injury risk during a single season in professional baseball pitchers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596711985077
Author(s):  
Danica D. Vance ◽  
Frank J. Alexander ◽  
Brian W. Kunkle ◽  
Mark Littlefield ◽  
Christopher S. Ahmad

Background: Medial ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injury is increasingly prevalent in professional baseball pitchers, and significant research has been devoted to understanding the risk factors and prevention strategies associated with it. To date, no study has investigated what the players themselves believe causes and prevents the injury. Purpose: To evaluate the opinions of UCL injuries among pitchers, including professional athletes. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A total of 214 baseball pitchers (45 high school/college, 169 Major League Baseball [MLB]/Minor League Baseball) completed a 52-item questionnaire designed to evaluate their opinions on the cause of UCL injuries, injury prevention, and Tommy John surgery. Overall, 51 of the 214 pitchers had previously experienced a UCL injury. The frequency of the selection of each answer option was measured. Additionally, chi-square tests were used to compare (1) responses between professional and nonprofessional pitchers and (2) responses between pitchers with and without a previous UCL injury. Results: Only 45% of pitchers thought that UCL injuries are avoidable in MLB. Additionally, 55% of pitchers with a UCL injury had a history of elbow injuries as an adolescent/child, compared with 18% in the uninjured group ( P < .0001). Also, 72% of all surveyed pitchers agreed that fatigue over the course of a season increases the risk of UCL injuries, and the majority of pitchers agreed that inadequate rest from throwing both during the off-season (61%) and the season (59%) increases the risk of UCL injuries. Moreover, 59% of pitchers believed that a 6-man starting rotation would decrease the incidence of UCL injuries. Professional and nonprofessional pitchers significantly differed ( P = .005) in the type of pitch most prone to causing UCL injuries. Conclusion: Pitchers with a previous childhood elbow injury had a significantly higher incidence of UCL injuries during their adult career, suggesting possible predisposition to UCL injury and warranting further research. Fatigue and inadequate rest were of greatest concern among all pitchers for an increased risk of UCL injuries. Understanding and acknowledging the opinions that players have regarding UCL injuries are important to improve UCL education, prevention, and treatment.


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

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712092055
Author(s):  
Laurie Lee Devaney ◽  
Craig R. Denegar ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Adam S. Lepley ◽  
Cory Edgar ◽  
...  

Background: Shoulder and elbow injuries in baseball pitchers, which can lead to significant pain and disability, have been on the rise at all levels of play for 3 decades. Despite anatomic and neurophysiological relationships, neck mobility has not been explored as a contributor to shoulder and elbow injuries in baseball pitchers. Hypothesis: Impaired neck mobility will increase the risk of shoulder and elbow injuries in college baseball pitchers. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Posture, neck mobility, and shoulder passive range of motion were measured in healthy college baseball pitchers during the 2018 preseason. Time loss (days lost because of shoulder or elbow injuries) and patient-reported disability via Functional Arm Scale for Throwers (FAST) scores were used to dichotomize pitchers into injured and uninjured groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and accuracy values and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated to assess the diagnostic utility of the physical measures. Time-to-injury analysis was conducted to assess the timing of injuries. Results: A total of 49 pitchers (mean age, 19.92 ± 1.48 years; mean height, 187.04 ± 6.02 cm; mean weight, 89.14 ± 12.08 kg) completed the study. There were 10 pitchers (20.4%) who sustained a time-loss injury >7 days because of a shoulder or elbow injury. A Cervical Flexion-Rotation Test (CFRT) finding on the dominant side of ≤39° resulted in over 9 times the increased risk of time-loss injuries (RR, 9.38 [95% CI, 1.28-68.49]). Time-to-injury analysis demonstrated differences between the 2 groups (χ2 = 7.667; P = .01). Pitchers with a >39.25° finding on the CFRT played a mean 109.4 of 112 days (95% CI, 105-114) before the injury, while pitchers with ≤39.25° only played 83.6 of 112 days (95% CI, 68-99). A CFRT finding of ≤38° (RR, 3.91 [95% CI, 1.23-12.39]), cervical flexion range of motion of ≤64° (RR, 10.56 [95% CI, 1.50-74.34]), and weight of >86.9 kg (RR, 10.42 [95% CI, 1.14-213.70]) were also associated with an increased risk of patient-reported pain and disability on the FAST pitcher module. Conclusion: College baseball pitchers with less neck mobility during the preseason had an increased risk of time loss and shoulder and elbow disability during the season. The predictive value of these measures as part of a risk screening profile should be further explored.


Author(s):  
Garrett S. Bullock ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Gary S. Collins ◽  
Nigel K. Arden ◽  
Thomas K. Noonan ◽  
...  

Abstract Context: It is currently unclear how different pitching roles affect arm injury risk in professional pitchers. Objective: 1) Investigate the differences in arm injury hazard between professional baseball starting and relief pitchers; 2) Separately investigate elbow and shoulder injury hazard between professional baseball starting and relief pitchers. Study Design: Prospective cohort Setting: Minor League Baseball (MiLB) from 2013–2019 Patients or Other Participants: Pitchers Main Outcome Measures: Pitchers were followed for the entire MiLB season and athletic exposures (AE's) and injuries were recorded. Risk ratios and risk difference were calculated between starting and relieving MiLB pitchers. A cox survival analysis was then performed in relation to time to arm injury between starting and relieving MiLB pitchers. Subgroup analyses were performed for elbow and shoulder. Results: 297 pitchers were included with a total of 85,270 player days recorded. Arm injury incidence was 11.4 arm injuries per 10,000 AE's. Starting pitchers demonstrated greater risk ratio (1.2 (95% CI: 1.1–1.3)) and risk difference (13.6 (95% CI: 5.6–21.6)) and hazard of arm injury (2.4 (95% CI: 1.5–4.0)) compared to relief pitchers. No differences were observed for hazard of elbow injury between starting and relief pitchers (1.9 (95% CI: 0.8–4.2)). Starting pitchers demonstrated greater hazard of shoulder injury compared to relief pitchers (3.8 (95% CI: 2.0–7.1)). Conclusions: Starting pitchers demonstrated almost two and a half times greater hazard of arm injury compared to relief pitchers. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that starters exhibited greater hazard of shoulder injury compared to relievers; but, no differences were observed for hazard of elbow injury. However, due to the wide confidence intervals, these subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution. Clinicians may need to consider cumulative exposure and fatigue and how these factors relate to different pitching roles when assessing pitching arm injury risk.


Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 759
Author(s):  
Byung Gon Kim ◽  
Seung Kil Lim ◽  
Sunga Kong

This study aims to assess the relationship between scapular upward rotation (SUR) across varying humeral-elevation angles (HEAs) and shoulder isokinetic strength and ratio in professional baseball pitchers. The subjects were professional baseball pitchers (n = 16) without a history of shoulder injury in the last six months. The subject’s SUR angles were measured with the humerus elevated at HEAs of 0° (at rest), 60°, 90°, and 120° to the scapular plane. Shoulder isokinetic strength was evaluated for shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) strength (PT%BW and TW%BW), and the ER/IR strength ratios were determined at 60, 120 and 180°/s using an isokinetic dynamometer. The SUR angle at an HEA of 0° was positively correlated with IR strength at 120°/s (r = 0.535) and 180°/s (r = 0.522). The SUR angle at an HEA of 60° was negatively correlated with the ER/IR strength ratios at 60°/s (r = −0.505) and 120°/s (r = −0.500). The SUR angle at an HEA of 90° was negatively correlated with the ER/IR strength ratios at 60°/s (r = −0.574; r = −0.554) and 120°/s (r = −0.521; r = −0.589) as well as with ER strength at 180°/s (r = −0.591, r = −0.556). The SUR angle at an HEA of 120° was negatively correlated with ER strength at 60°/s (r = −0.558), 120°/s (r = −0.504; r = −0.524), and 180°/s (r = −0.543) and the ER/IR strength ratio at 60°/s (r = −0.517). In this study, we found that the ratio of isokinetic strength between ER and IR became closer to the normal range on increasing the SUR angle. In particular, an HEA of 90°, which resembles the pitching motion, showed a clear relationship between SUR, shoulder ER, and the ratio of ER/IR isokinetic strength in professional baseball pitchers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 2214-2219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Noonan ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Lane B. Bailey ◽  
Douglas J. Wyland ◽  
Michael Kissenberth ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document