Explore the vast range of titles available.

High loads in the elbow during baseball pitching can lead to serious injuries, including injuries to the ulnar collateral ligament. These injuries have substantial implications for individual pitchers and their teams, especially at the professional level of competition. With a trend toward increased ball velocity in professional baseball, controversy still exists regarding the strength of the relationship between ball velocity and elbow-varus torque. To examine the relationship between fastball velocity and elbow-varus torque in professional pitchers using between- and within-subjects statistical analyses. Cross-sectional study. Motion-analysis laboratory. Using the previously collected biomechanical data of 452 professional baseball pitchers, we performed a retrospective analysis of the 64 pitchers (52 right-hand dominant, 12 left-hand dominant; age = 21.8 ± 2.0 years, height = 1.90 ± 0.05 m, mass = 94.6 ± 7.8 kg) with fastball velocity distributions that enabled between- and within-subjects statistical analyses. We measured ball velocity using a radar gun and 3-dimensional motion data using a 12-camera automated motion-capture system sampling at 240 Hz. We calculated elbow-varus torque using inverse-dynamics techniques and then analyzed the relationship between ball velocity and elbow torque using both a simple linear regression model and a mixed linear model with random intercepts. The between-subjects analyses displayed a weak positive association between ball velocity and elbow-varus torque ( = 0.076, = .03). The within-subjects analyses showed a considerably stronger positive association ( = 0.957, < .001). When comparing 2 professional baseball pitchers, higher velocity may not necessarily indicate higher elbow-varus torque due to the confounding effects of pitcher-specific differences (eg, detailed anthropometrics and pitching mechanics). However, within an individual pitcher, higher ball velocity was strongly associated with higher elbow-varus torque.

To determine whether mound height is associated with baseball movement (velocity, spin and break) and baseball pitching biomechanics (kinematics and kinetics). Controlled laboratory study. Twenty collegiate baseball pitchers threw five fastballs and five curveballs from four different mound heights (15cm, 20cm, 25cm, 30cm) in a randomized order. Ball movement was computed by a ball tracking system, while pitching biomechanics were calculated with an 11-camera optical motion capture system. Repeated measures analysis of variance was utilized to detect significant differences among the four different mound heights (p<0.05) for the fastball and curveball pitches. There were no significant differences observed for ball movement. There were seven significant kinematic differences for fastballs and eight kinematic differences for curveballs. Although these differences were statistically significant, the magnitudes were small, with most joint angles changing by less than 2°. There were no significant kinetic differences for curveballs, but five kinetic parameters (elbow varus torque, elbow flexion torque, elbow proximal force, shoulder internal rotation torque, and shoulder anterior force) varied with mound height for fastballs. In general, fastball kinetics were 1%–2% less from the lowered (15cm, 20cm) mounds than from the standard (25cm) or raised (30cm) mounds. Lowering the mound may not affect a pitcher’s ball movement, but may slightly reduce shoulder and elbow kinetics, possibly reducing the risk of injury.

Background: The probability of returning to competition for injured baseball pitchers is similar after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) repair as after UCL reconstruction, but the time to return is significantly quicker after UCL repair. Previous research has found no differences in pitching biomechanics between pitchers with and without a history of UCL reconstruction, but pitching biomechanics after UCL repair has not been studied. Hypothesis: There will be significant differences in pitching biomechanics between pitchers returning to play after UCL repair and pitchers with no injury history. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 33 pitchers were tested shortly after UCL repair (9.8 ± 2.6 months) and compared with a matched group of 33 uninjured pitchers. Each group comprised 14 college pitchers and 19 high school pitchers. Shoulder and elbow passive ranges of motion were measured. The biomechanics of 10 fastballs was then collected using a 12-camera automated motion capture system. Ball velocity was measured using a separate 3-camera optical tracking system. Data were compared between the UCL repair group and the control group using the Student t test (significance set at P < .05). Results: There were no differences in passive range of motion or fastball velocity between the 2 groups. There were no differences in joint kinetics during pitching, but 3 kinematic variables showed significant differences. Specifically, the UCL repair group produced less elbow extension (flexion: 27° ± 6° vs 24° ± 4°, respectively; P = .03), less elbow extension velocity (2442 ± 367 vs 2631 ± 292 deg/s, respectively; P = .02), and less shoulder internal rotation velocity (6273 ± 1093 vs 6771 ± 914 deg/s, respectively; P = .049 ) compared with the control group. Conclusion: Elbow extension, elbow velocity, and shoulder velocity differed between pitchers with a recent history of UCL repair and a matched control group, but it is unclear whether this has clinical significance, as there were no differences in ball velocity and passive range of motion. Furthermore, it is unknown whether these few differences in pitching biomechanics resolve with time. Clinical Relevance: Elbow and shoulder kinematics during pitching might not be completely regained within the first year after UCL repair, although passive range of motion and pitch velocity show no difference in comparison to other healthy pitchers.

To determine whether increasing pitching distance for adult baseball pitchers would affect their upper extremity kinetics, full-body kinematics, and pitched ball kinematics (ball velocity, duration of ball flight, vertical and horizontal break, strike percentage). Controlled laboratory study. Twenty-six collegiate baseball pitchers threw sets of five full-effort fastballs from three different pitching distances (18.44m, 19.05m, 19.41m) in a randomized order. Ball velocity, horizontal and vertical break, duration of ball flight, and strike percentage were computed by a ball tracking system, while pitching kinetics and kinematics were calculated with a 12-camera optical motion capture system. Repeated measures analysis of variance was utilized to detect significant differences among the three different pitching distances (p<0.05). No significant differences in pitching kinetics and kinematics were observed among the varying pitching distances. Ball velocity and strike percentage were also not significantly different among the pitching distances, however, the duration of ball flight and horizontal and vertical break significantly increased with pitching distance. Increasing pitching distance may not alter upper extremity kinetics, full-body kinematics, ball velocity or strike percentage in adult pitchers. However, as pitching distance increases the duration of ball flight and amount of horizontal and vertical break also increase. Increased ball flight duration could be an advantage for the hitter while increased ball break could help the pitcher. In conclusion, it is unlikely that moving the mound backwards would significantly affect pitching biomechanics and injury risk; however, the effects on pitching and hitting performance are unknown.