Shoulder Range of Motion Deficits in Youth Throwers Presenting With Elbow Pain

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110363
Author(s):  
Michael Rosen ◽  
Karim Meijer ◽  
Scott Tucker ◽  
C. Luke Wilcox ◽  
Hillary A. Plummer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Pain Group ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Elbow Pain ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion

Background: Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) and total arc of motion difference (TAMD) have been associated with elbow injuries in throwing athletes. Hypothesis: Youth pitchers with elbow pain will have greater GIRD and TAMD compared with youth pitchers without elbow pain. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: Glenohumeral range of motion of 25 consecutive throwing athletes presenting with elbow pain and that of a matched control group of 18 asymptomatic throwing athletes were compared. Bilateral glenohumeral internal rotation, external rotation, and horizontal adduction at 90° were measured and GIRD and TAMD were then calculated. An analysis of variance was performed to compare range of motion between throwers with and without elbow pain. Results: The average GIRD of the elbow pain group was 32.7° compared with 14.5° in the control group ( P < 0.05). The average TAMD in the elbow pain group was 28.3° compared with 6.7° in the control group ( P < 0.05). GIRD and TAMD were present in 88% (22 of 25) and 96% (24 of 25) of the elbow pain group versus 33.3% (6 of 18) and 55.6% (10 of 18) of the control group, respectively. Conclusion: Compared with asymptomatic youth pitchers, those presenting with elbow pain have a statistically significant GIRD and TAMD. Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that a GIRD and TAMD may predispose youth pitchers to present with symptomatic elbow pain.

Range of motion and muscle function on shoulder joints of young handball athletes

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Luis Ceballos-Laita ◽  
Alberto Pérez-Manzano ◽  
Teresa Mingo-Gómez ◽  
Ignacio Hernando-Garijo ◽  
Ricardo Medrano-De-La-Fuente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Muscle Function ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Posterior Part ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Rotation Strength

BACKGROUND: The detection of primary risk factors through the assessment of shoulder range of motion (ROM) and muscle function could prevent injuries in the initial stages of the handball (HB) practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare shoulder ROM, muscle strength and muscle extensibility between throwing and non-throwing shoulders in young HB athletes and between non-HB athletes. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed. Participants aged between 14–16 years that practice physical activity regularly were included and divided in two groups. The HB group included volunteers who practiced HB, the control group included volunteers who practiced other activities. The variables measured were internal rotation and external rotation ROM, maximum isometric strength, and extensibility of the tissues of the posterior part of the throwing and non-throwing shoulder. RESULTS: Thirty-seven subjects were included. The HB group (n= 19) showed greater ROM in both shoulders compared to the control group (n= 18) (p< 0.05). The throwing shoulder of the HB group showed less internal rotation ROM, greater external rotation ROM and greater internal rotation strength when compared to the non-throwing shoulder (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that young HB athletes present differences in shoulder ROM compared to non-HB athletes. Also, HB athletes showed differences in ROM and strength between the TS and non-TS. Hence, the assessment of the shoulder ROM and muscle function should be taken into consideration to avoid injuries in this population.

Measurement of Glenohumeral Internal Rotation in Asymptomatic Tennis Players and Swimmers

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 1017-1023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato Rangel Torres ◽  
João Luiz Ellera Gomes
Keyword(s):  
Internal Rotation ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Tennis Players ◽  
Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Overhead Sports ◽  
The Difference

Background Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit, often diagnosed in players of overhead sports, has been associated with the development of secondary shoulder lesions. Hypothesis Asymptomatic players of different overhead sports will exhibit variable degrees of glenohumeral internal rotation deficit. Study Design Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods Fifty-four asymptomatic male volunteers (108 shoulders) divided into 3 groups (tennis players, swimmers, control group) underwent measurements of glenohumeral internal and external rotation using clinical examination with scapular stabilization. Measurements of dominant and nondominant shoulders were compared within and between groups. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) was defined as the difference in internal rotation between the nondominant and dominant shoulders. Results In tennis players, mean GIRD was 23.9° ± 8.4° (P < .001); in swimmers, 12° ± 6.8° (P < .001); and in the control group, 4.9° ± 7.4° (P = .035). Dominant shoulders showed significant difference between all groups, and the difference in internal rotation of the dominant shoulder between the group of tennis players in comparison with the control group (27.6°, P < .001) was greater than the difference in internal rotation of the dominant shoulder found in the group of swimmers compared with the control group (17.9°, P < .001). Between tennis players and swimmers, the difference in internal rotation of the dominant shoulder was 9.7° (P = .002). Conclusion Dominant limbs showed less glenohumeral internal rotation than the nondominant limbs in all groups, with the deficit in the group of tennis players about twice the deficit found for swimmers. Mean difference between limbs in the control group was less than 5°, which is within normal parameters according to most studies. There were statistically significant differences between all groups when dominant shoulders were compared with each other, differences that were not compensated by external rotation gain. Tennis players had the least range of motion, followed by swimmers.

Femoroacetabular Impingement Patients With Decreased Femoral Version Have Different Impingement Locations and Intra- and Extraarticular Anterior Subspine FAI on 3D-CT–Based Impingement Simulation: Implications for Hip Arthroscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (13) ◽  
pp. 3120-3132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Till D. Lerch ◽  
Adam Boschung ◽  
Inga A.S. Todorski ◽  
Simon D. Steppacher ◽  
Florian Schmaranzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hip Impingement ◽  
Femoral Version ◽  
Asymptomatic Control

Background: It remains unclear whether decreased femoral version (FV) causes anterior intra- or extra-articular femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Therefore, we evaluated symptomatic hips with decreased FV, with and without cam and pincer FAI, by using computed tomography (CT)–based virtual 3-dimensional (3D) impingement simulation and compared this group with patients with normal FV and with asymptomatic hips. Purpose: To investigate (1) the osseous range of motion, (2) the osseous femoral and acetabular impingement zones, and (3) whether hip impingement is extra- or intra-articular in symptomatic hips with FAI. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: An institutional review board–approved, retrospective comparative analysis was performed on a total of 84 hips in 68 participants. Of these, 37 hips in 24 symptomatic patients with FAI had decreased FV. These hips were compared with 21 hips of 18 symptomatic patients with anterior FAI with normal FV (10°-25°) and 26 asymptomatic hips with no FAI and normal FV. All patients with FAI were symptomatic and had anterior hip pain and a positive anterior impingement test. They underwent pelvic CT scans to measure FV. Decreased FV was defined as FV less than 5°. The 37 hips with decreased FV presented both with and without cam and pincer FAI. All 84 hips were evaluated by use of CT-based 3D models and a validated 3D range of motion and impingement simulation. Asymptomatic hips were contralateral normal hips imaged in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Results: Hips with FAI combined with decreased FV had a significantly ( P < .001) lower mean flexion (114°± 8° vs 125°± 13°) and internal rotation (IR) at 90° of flexion (18°± 6° vs 32°± 9°, P < .001) compared with the asymptomatic control group. Symptomatic patients with FAI and normal FV had flexion of 120°± 16° and IR at 90° of flexion of 23°± 15°. In a subgroup analysis, we found a significantly ( P < .001) lower IR in 90° of flexion in hips with FV less than 5° combined with mixed-type FAI compared with hips with FV less than 5° without a cam- or pincer-type deformity. The maximal acetabular impingement zone for hips with decreased FV was located at the 2-o’clock position and ranged from 1 to 3 o’clock. In hips with decreased FV, most of the impingement locations were intra-articular but 32% of hips had combined intra- and extra-articular FAI in internal rotation in 90° of flexion. During the flexion-adduction-IR test performed in 10° and 20° of adduction, extra-articular subspine FAI had significantly ( P < .001) higher prevalence (68% and 84%) in hips with decreased FV compared with normal hips. Conclusion: Hips with FAI and decreased FV had less flexion and internal rotation in 90° of flexion compared with the asymptomatic control group. The majority of hip impingement due to low FV was intra-articular, but one-third of samples had combined intra- and extra-articular subspine FAI. Anterior extra- and intra-articular hip impingement can be present in patients who have FAI with decreased FV. This could be important for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.

scholarly journals Differences in Passive Shoulder Range of Motion Between Baseball Players With Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome and Matched Healthy Controls

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 232596712110007
Author(s):  
J. Craig Garrison ◽  
Joseph P. Hannon ◽  
John E. Conway
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Baseball Players ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome ◽  
Shoulder Range

Background: Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (nTOS) is becoming more recognized as a diagnosis in the throwing athlete. Currently, there is limited information on the clinical presentation and development of nTOS in baseball players. Purpose: To compare passive shoulder range of motion (ROM) and anatomic humeral retrotorsion (HRT) of baseball players diagnosed with nTOS with a group of healthy, matched controls. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 53 adolescent baseball players diagnosed with nTOS (age, 17.2 ± 2.3 years; height, 180.9 ± 10.1 cm; weight, 80.0 ± 13.3 kg) were compared with 53 healthy baseball players (age, 17.2 ± 2.4 years; height, 183.9 ± 9.0 cm; weight, 83.8 ± 11.5 kg). Participants were measured for shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM and HRT. All measurements were taken bilaterally, and the differences (throwing to nonthrowing arm) were used to calculate mean values for glenohumeral internal rotation difference, glenohumeral external rotation difference (GERD), total rotational motion difference (TRMdiff), and anatomic humeral retrotorsion difference. Group comparisons were made between the nTOS and control players using multivariate analysis of variance, and descriptive comparisons were made with independent t tests. Results: There were no significant differences between groups in age, height, weight, or years of experience. Players in the nTOS group had significantly less throwing arm ER compared with controls (103.4° ± 10.4° vs 109.6° ± 7.5°, respectively; P = .001) and GERD (3.0° ± 9.2° vs 8.8° ± 9.2°, respectively; P = .002). TRMdiff was significantly greater in nTOS (–11.1° ± 11.1°) than in controls (–3.7° ± 9.4°) ( P < .001). Conclusion: In the current study, adolescent baseball players diagnosed with nTOS were evaluated with shoulder ROM differences when compared with a matched healthy cohort. A loss of throwing arm ER appeared to be the main factor behind shoulder ROM changes in the nTOS group.

scholarly journals Shoulder Range of Motion and Baseball Arm Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 1190-1199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett S. Bullock ◽  
Mallory S. Faherty ◽  
Leila Ledbetter ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Timothy C. Sell
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Baseball Players ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Methodologic Quality ◽  
Arm Injuries

Objective Arm injuries in baseball players are a common problem. The identification of modifiable risk factors, including range of motion (ROM), is essential for injury prevention. The purpose of this review was to assess the methodologic quality and level of evidence in the literature and to investigate the relationship between shoulder ROM and the risk of arm injuries in baseball players. Data Sources Relevant studies in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and SPORTDiscus published from inception to August 1, 2017. Study Selection Only studies that encompassed healthy baseball cohorts who were assessed for shoulder ROM and prospectively evaluated for injuries throughout a baseball season or seasons were included. Data Extraction Six articles met the search criteria. Only 3 studies were included in the meta-analysis due to disparate participant groups. Data Synthesis The modified Downs and Black scale (0–15 points) was used to analyze methodologic quality. Study quality ranged from 11 to 14. Four studies received high-quality (≥12) and 2 studies received moderate-quality (≥10) scores. The overall pooled analysis demonstrated that absolute and internal-rotation deficits (–5.93 [95% confidence interval {CI} = –9.43, –2.43], P &lt; .001 and 4.28 [0.71, 7.86], P = .02, respectively) and absolute total ROM (TROM; –6.19 [95% CI = –10.28, –2.10]; P = .003) were predictors of injury, and these data exhibited homogeneity (absolute IR P value = .77, I2 = 0%; IR deficit P value = .41, I2 = 0%; absolute TROM P value = .78, I2 = 0%). No significance was observed for absolute external rotation (–2.86 [95% CI = –6.56, 0.83], P = .13), which had data with high heterogeneity (P = .003; I2 = 83%). A deficit in horizontal adduction was a predictor of injury (–8.32 [95% CI = –12.08, –4.56]; P &lt; .001); these data were homogeneous but yielded a moderate heterogenic effect (P = .16; I2 = 50%). Conclusions High-quality evidence demonstrated that deficits in throwing-arm TROM and IR were associated with upper extremity injury in baseball players. Heterogeneity across studies for horizontal adduction suggested that this may be a modifiable risk factor for injury, but it requires further research.

Shoulder Rotation Function following the Sup-ER Protocol in Children with Brachial Plexus Injuries

Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894472093736
Author(s):  
Leeor S. Yefet ◽  
Doria Bellows ◽  
Marija Bucevska ◽  
Rebecca Courtemanche ◽  
Kim Durlacher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Elbow Function ◽  
Rotation Strength ◽  
Rotation Function

Background: Our group previously developed an upper extremity repositioning (Sup-ER) protocol for brachial plexus birth injuries (BPBIs) that may improve supination and external rotation (ER) at 2 years of age. Questions were raised about the potential for the protocol to cause internal rotation (IR) deficits. The goal of this study was to explore the longer-term outcomes of the Sup-ER protocol and investigate IR/ER function. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional cohort study examined 16 children older than 4 years of age with significant enough BPBI to be treated with the Sup-ER protocol. Total shoulder and elbow function were assessed, including passive and active ranges of motion and strength of IR and ER. Results: Range of motion (ROM) for most active movements was decreased in the affected compared to unaffected arm. Notably, IR passive ROM was similar in the affected (78.7°) and unaffected arm (82.8°). External rotation strength of the affected arm was weaker (42.8 N) compared to the unaffected arm (57.9 N). IR strength had a greater deficit in the affected (43.2 N) arm compared to the unaffected arm (72.2 N), but both ER and IR showed less deficit than described in the literature. Conclusions: Despite differences in ranges of motion between the affected and unaffected arms, ROMs for the affected arm were comparable to the functional limits as reported in the literature. The Sup-ER protocol shows potential to optimize long-term shoulder rotation function in children with BPBI without compromising IR.

scholarly journals The Relationship Between Shoulder Range of Motion and Arm Stress in College Pitchers: A MOTUS Baseball Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0040
Author(s):  
Caleb Gulledge ◽  
Toufic Jildeh ◽  
Joseph Tramer ◽  
Fabien Meta ◽  
Kevin Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Shoulder Range

Objectives: Overuse injuries in overhead athletes are becoming more prevalent, with an unclear relationship between shoulder biomechanics and medial elbow symptoms and injury. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of shoulder range of motion to torque across the medial elbow in college pitchers using a validated MOTUS sensor baseball sleeve. Methods: Pitchers were recruited from three local university baseball teams. Exclusion criteria included injury or restricted activity due to pain. They were evaluated in the preseason, within two weeks before their first game of the season. Pitchers completed workload questionnaires and patient reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) pain interference (PI), physical function (PF), and upper extremity (UE) surveys. Shoulder range of motion and upper extremity lengths were measured bilaterally. After adequate warm-up, pitchers were fitted with a MOTUS sensor baseball sleeve (Motus Global, Massapequa, NY) and instructed to throw 5 fastballs in a standardized manner off the mound at game-speed effort. The sensor placed at the medial elbow reported elbow torque, arm speed, arm slot, and shoulder rotation for each pitch, while a radar gun measured peak ball velocity. The primary outcome was to evaluate the relationship between shoulder range of motion and increased stress across the medial elbow. Additional outcomes evaluated pitcher characteristics, demographics, and outcome scores. Outcomes were assessed via a multivariable model, which controlled for possible covariates. Results: Twenty-eight pitchers were included in the preseason analysis with an average (SD) age of 20.1 (1.3) years and playing experience of 15.3 (1.8) years, 2.5 (1.2) of those years at collegiate level. The dominant shoulder demonstrated decreased internal rotation (54.5+/-10.6 vs 65.8+/-9.1) and increased external rotation (ER, 94.1+/-10.4 vs 88.4+/-9.2) relative to the non-dominant side (p < 0.001), while total rotational range of motion (TRROM) was significantly decreased in the dominant arm (148.6+/-12.4 vs 154.1+/-10.6, p < 0.001). The average glenohumeral internal rotation deficiency (GIRD) was 11.3 (9.87) and average external rotation gain (ERG) was 5.71 (8.8). External rotation was found to be a predictor of arm stress, with an increase in 0.35 Nm of elbow torque for every degree increase in ER (beta = 0.35+/-0.06, p = 0.003); there was moderate correlation between ER and arm stress (r = .45, P<.001). Pitchers demonstrated significantly greater arm stress with the following shoulder ROM measurements: GIRD < 20 as compared to greater than 20 degrees (46.6 +/- 0.5 versus 43.5 +/- 1.1, P=.011), ERG greater than 5 as compared to < 5 degrees (47.4 +/- 0.7 versus 45.1 +/- 0.6, P=.014), and loss of total rotational ROM less than 5 as compared to > 5 degrees (46.6 +/- 0.5 versus 43.6 +/- 1.1, P=.013). Multivariate analysis demonstrated significant predictors of PROMIS PF and UE scores were arm stress, ERG, and GIRD (p<0.05), while increased PROMIS PI scores were predicted by increased ERG and GIRD (p<0.05). Conclusion: We found medial elbow stress, arm speed, arm slot, and shoulder rotation as measured by the MOTUS baseball sensor sleeve were influenced by rotational adaptations of the pitching shoulder in collegiate throwing athletes prior to their season. Likewise, arm stress and shoulder rotational adaptations were reflected as predictors of PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores.

Shoulder Range of Motion and Strength Characteristics in Circus Acrobats

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-152
Author(s):  
Carlie Huberman ◽  
Melissa Scales ◽  
Srikant Vallabhajosula
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Hand Dominance ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Shoulder Strength ◽  
Shoulder Complex ◽  
Shoulder Range

OBJECTIVES: To begin to establish normative data for shoulder range of motion (ROM) and strength in the circus acrobats and to compare these values based on age, sex, hand dominance, and acrobatic subgroup. METHODS: Active (AROM) and passive (PROM) of the full shoulder complex and PROM of the isolated glenohumeral joint were measured in 193 circus acrobats using standardized techniques for anterior elevation (flexion), posterior elevation (extension), lateral elevation (abduction), and external and internal rotation. Shoulder strength was measured using a hand-held dynamometer in all planes of motion. Measurements were taken twice and averaged. Mixed ANOVA were performed. One-sample t-tests were used to compare with general population. RESULTS: Several significant differences were noted between dominant and non-dominant sides, but not between the sex or age groups tested. Acrobats who did both aerial and ground acrobatics had significantly greater full shoulder complex flexion AROM than the aerial group, and AROM extension than the ground group. Circus acrobats had significantly greater AROM full shoulder complex extension, abduction, internal and external rotation, and shoulder strength than the general population. CONCLUSION: Overall, results from this cross-sectional study revealed that circus acrobats had greater shoulder strength and ROM than the general population, which could affect the way these patients should be treated in a clinical setting. Age and sex seemed to have minimal effects, but there was clearly an effect of hand dominance. Acrobats who train both aerial and ground acrobatics may have greater ROM in certain planes than those who train in only one type of discipline.

Shoulder Range of Motion Deficits in Baseball Players With an Ulnar Collateral Ligament Tear

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2597-2603 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Craig Garrison ◽  
Mollie A. Cole ◽  
John E. Conway ◽  
Michael J. Macko ◽  
Charles Thigpen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Ulnar Collateral Ligament ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Elbow Extension ◽  
Collateral Ligament ◽  
Baseball Players ◽  
Elbow Injury ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Shoulder Range

Background: Shoulder range of motion (ROM) deficits are associated with elbow injury in baseball players. Purpose: To compare the ROM characteristics of baseball players with a diagnosed ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tear with those of a group of age-, activity-, and position-matched healthy controls. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Sixty male competitive high school and collegiate baseball players participated. Thirty athletes (age [mean ± standard deviation], 18.20 ± 1.56 years) with a diagnosed UCL tear were compared with 30 (age, 18.57 ± 0.86 years) age-, activity-, and position-matched players without a UCL injury. Of the 60 participants, there were 44 pitchers, 4 catchers, 5 infielders, and 7 outfielders. Participants were measured for shoulder internal rotation (IR), external rotation (ER), and horizontal adduction (HA) at 90° of shoulder elevation. Participants were also measured for elbow extension in a seated position. Group comparisons were made between participants with and without a UCL injury using independent t tests with an α level set at P < .05. All measurements were taken bilaterally, and the differences (involved to uninvolved) were used to calculate means for all variables, including glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD), total rotational motion (TRM), HA, and elbow extension. Results: Baseball players with a UCL tear (UCLInj) exhibited significantly greater deficits in TRM compared with the control group of healthy baseball players (NUCLInj) (UCLInj = −6.67° ± 11.82°, NUCLInj = 0.93° ± 9.91°; P = .009). No group differences were present for GIRD (UCLInj = −12.53° ± 5.98°, NUCLInj = −13.63° ± 5.90°; P = .476), HA (UCLInj = −3.00° ± 5.01°, NUCLInj = −3.23° ± 5.15°; P = .860), or elbow extension (UCLInj = −2.63° ± 7.86°, NUCLInj = −1.17° ± 2.76°; P = .339). Pitchers with a UCL tear had significantly greater deficits in TRM (UCLInjPitch = −6.96° ± 11.20°, NUCLInjPitch = 1.29° ± 8.33°; P = .0087) and dominant shoulder ER (UCLInjPitch = 112.04° ± 14.35°, NUCLInjPitch = 121.85° ± 9.46°; P = .011) than pitchers without a UCL tear. Conclusion: A deficit in TRM is associated with a UCL tear in baseball players. Although GIRD may be prevalent in throwers, it may not be associated with a UCL injury. When examining ROM in baseball players, it is important to assess both TRM and GIRD.

Infraspinatus Cross-Sectional Area and Shoulder Range of Motion Change Following Live-Game Baseball Pitching

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett S. Pexa ◽  
Eric D. Ryan ◽  
Elizabeth E. Hibberd ◽  
Elizabeth Teel ◽  
Terri Jo Rucinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Athletic Training ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Before And After

Context: Following a baseball pitching bout, changes can occur to glenohumeral range of motion that could be linked to injury. These effects are in part due to the posterior shoulder’s eccentric muscle activity, which can disrupt muscle contractile elements and lead to changes in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), as measured by ultrasound. Objective: To assess changes in muscle CSA, and range of motion immediately before and after pitching, and days 1 to 5 following pitching. Design: Repeated measures. Setting: Satellite athletic training room. Patients: Ten elite college baseball pitchers participating in the fall season (age: 18.8 [1.2] y, height: 189.2 [7.3] cm, mass: 93.1 [15.3] kg, 8 starters, 2 long relievers). Intervention: A pitching bout of at least 25 pitches (63.82 [17.42] pitches). Main Outcome Measures: Dominant and nondominant infraspinatus CSA, as measured by ultrasound, and glenohumeral range of motion including internal rotation (IRROM), external rotation (ERROM), and total rotation range of motion (TROM) before pitching, after pitching, and days 1 to 5 following the pitching bout. Results: Dominant limb CSA significantly increased day 1 after pitching, and returned to baseline on day 2 (P < .001). Dominant and nondominant TROM did not change until day 5 (4.4°, P < .001) and day 3 (4.5°, P < .001), respectively, where they increased. Dominant IRROM was significantly decreased for 3 days (day 1: 1.9°, P < .001; day 2: 3.1°, P < .001; day 3: 0.3°, P < .001) following pitching and returned to baseline on day 4, with no such changes in the nondominant limb. Dominant external rotation significantly increased immediately post pitching (4.4°, P < .001) but returned to baseline by day 1. Conclusions: The results of the study demonstrate that infraspinatus CSA does not recover until 2 days following pitching, and IRROM does not recover until 4 days following pitching. Baseball pitching elicits damage to the posterior shoulder muscle architecture, resulting in changes to physical characteristics that last up to 4 days following pitching.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document