| Literature DB >> 32544928 |
Tsuyoshi Tajika1, Noboru Oya1, Tsuyoshi Ichinose1, Noritaka Hamano1, Tsuyoshi Sasaki1, Daisuke Shimoyama1, Hitoshi Shitara1, Atsushi Yamamoto2, Tsutomu Kobayashi3, Masaaki Sakamoto4, Kenji Takagishi5, Hirotaka Chikuda1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few researchers have examined the different contributions of flexor-pronator muscles to valgus stress in high school baseball pitchers with and without elbow symptoms. This study used ultrasonography to assess these muscles' dynamic contributions to elbow valgus joint stability in high school pitchers.Entities:
Keywords: Baseball; elbow; forearm flexor muscle strength; pitcher; ulnar collateral ligament (UCL); valgus instability
Year: 2019 PMID: 32544928 PMCID: PMC7075757 DOI: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.10.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JSES Int ISSN: 2666-6383
Figure 1(A) Supine subjects were scanned with the elbow at 30° of flexion without gravity stress. (B) Supine subjects were scanned with the elbow at 30° of flexion with gravity stress. (C) We instructed the participants to perform finger full flexion with wrist ulnar flexion. Subjects in a supine position were scanned with the elbow at 30° of flexion with isometric contraction of flexor digitorum superficialis and profundus muscle and flexor carpi ulnaris muscle under gravity stress. (D) We instructed the participants to perform forearm full pronation. Supine subjects were scanned with the elbow at 30° of flexion with isometric contraction of the pronator muscle under gravity stress.
Figure 2We measured the ulnohumeral joint width at the level of the anterior band with and without valgus stress on the bilateral side. We defined the ulnohumeral joint space as the distance from the edge of the trochlea of the humerus to the edge of the coronoid process of the ulna. CFT, common flexor tendon; MFH, medial epicondyle of the humerus; TH, trochlea of the humerus; CU, coronoid process of the ulna.
Physical characteristics of participants with and without elbow pain
| Elbow pain (n=29) | No elbow pain (n=60) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 16.5 ± 0.5 | 16.4 ± 0.5 | .77 |
| Height, cm | 171.8 ± 5.6 | 172.7 ± 6.1 | .32 |
| Weight, kg | 70.1 ± 7.9 | 67.5 ± 8.0 | .22 |
| Body mass index | 23.7 ± 2.2 | 22.6 ± 2.2 | .02 |
| Years of experience | 9.6 ± 1.8 | 9.1 ± 1.5 | .13 |
| Elbow range of motion | |||
| Dominant elbow, degrees | |||
| Extension | 2 ± 7 | 4 ± 5 | .24 |
| Flexion | 140 ± 5 | 143 ± 4 | .003 |
| Nondominant elbow (deg) | |||
| Extension | 8 ± 5 | 7 ± 5 | .25 |
| Flexion | 143 ± 4 | 145± 4 | .02 |
| Dominant grip strength, kg | 38.4 ± 7.4 | 37.2 ± 5.3 | .42 |
| Nondominant grip strength, kg | 37.9 ± 5.7 | 37.5 ± 6.0 | .75 |
| Positivity or negativity in Milking maneuver test, n | |||
| Positive | 8 | 1 | .0004 |
| Negative | 21 | 59 | |
| Pitching performance score | 62 ± 21 | 67 ± 17 | .22 |
Unless otherwise noted, values are means ± standard deviations.
Significance: P < .05.
Figure 3Effects of isometric contraction of flexor-pronator muscles on gravity stress with 30° elbow flexion. *P < .001 compared to nongravity stress, finger full flexion with wrist ulnar flexion under gravity stress, and forearm pronation under gravity stress.
Difference of the width of ulnohumeral joint space between at rest and with flexor-pronator muscle contraction under gravity stress
| Elbow pain (n = 29) | No elbow pain (n = 60) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Difference between the width of ulnohumeral joint space at rest and the width of ulnohumeral joint space under gravity stress, mm | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.6 | .81 |
| Difference between the width of ulnohumeral joint space at rest and the width of ulnohumeral joint with a maximal grip contraction with wrist ulnar flexion under gravity stress, mm | –0.1 ± 0.6 | 0.1 ± 0.6 | .4 |
| Difference between the width of ulnohumeral joint space at rest and the width of ulnohumeral joint with forearm pronation under gravity stress, mm | –0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.0 ± 0.8 | .11 |
Values are means ± standard deviations.
Significance: P < .05.