| Literature DB >> 33554160 |
Issei Noda1,2,3, Shintarou Kudo1,3,4.
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that ulnohumeral joint space distance due to gravity valgus stress may not be related to pain in the medial elbow of the dominant arm in baseball players.Entities:
Keywords: Ulnar collateral ligament; flexor pronator muscles; medial elbow pain; ultrasound imaging; valgus instability
Year: 2020 PMID: 33554160 PMCID: PMC7846683 DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.09.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JSES Int ISSN: 2666-6383
Figure 1Clinical images at rest and with valgus stress in the pitching arm. All players were positioned supine on the bed with maximal external rotation of shoulder, the arm in 90° of abduction, the elbow flexed to 90°, and the forearm in the neutral position. In this position, the examiner applied gravity valgus stress to the arm of the players.
Figure 2Ultrasonographic images of the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL). The top of the MEC, the AOL, and the ST are obtained. MEC, medial epicondyle; AOL, anterior oblique ligament; ST, sublime tubercle.
Baseball player demographics
| Healthy group | Injury group | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 15.5 ± 1.8 | 16.2 ± 1.8 |
| Height, cm | 171.6 ± 4.9 | 172.2 ± 6.8 |
| Weight, kg | 65.1 ± 8.1 | 65.8 ± 9.5 |
| Exercise sessions per week | 4.8 ± 1.2 | 5.5 ± 1.7 |
| Exercise time, h | 5.1 ± 1.1 | 4.6 ± 1.4 |
| Position | Pitcher 5 | Pitcher 6 |
| Fielder 11 | Fielder 9 |
Horizontal distance
| Rest | FCR | FCU | FDS | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy group, mm, mean ± SD | |||||
| Dominant side | 4.8 ± 0.91 | 3.68 ± 0.61 | 3.95 ± 0.60 | 3.37 ± 0.63 | 3.21 ± 0.67 |
| Nondominant side | 3.69 ± 0.91 | 3.01 ± 0.71 | 3.11 ± 0.95 | 2.83 ± 0.65 | 2.65 ± 0.67 |
| Injury group, mm, mean ± SD | |||||
| Dominant side | 4.51 ± 0.97 | 3.69 ± 0.73 | 3.69 ± 0.83 | 3.1 ± 0.65 | 3.1 ± 0.64 |
| Nondominant side | 3.51 ± 0.77 | 2.74 ± 0.63 | 2.84 ± 0.89 | 2.55 ± 0.61 | 2.43 ± 0.81 |
SD, standard deviation; FCR, flexor carpi radialis; FCU, flexor carpi ulnaris; FDS, flexor digitorum superficial; PT, pronator teres.
Vertical distance
| Rest | FCR | FCU | FDS | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy group, mm, mean ± SD | |||||
| Dominant side | –0.03 ± 0.62 | 0.45 ± 0.7 | 0.53 ± 0.72 | 0.49 ± 0.67 | 1.01 ± 0.58 |
| Nondominant side | 0.69 ± 0.7 | 0.63 ± 0.65 | 0.54 ± 0.64 | 0.66 ± 0.67 | 0.87 ± 0.67 |
| Injury group, mm, mean ± SD | |||||
| Dominant side | –0.25 ± 0.61 | –0.01 ± 0.54 | 0.07 ± 0.5 | 0.33 ± 0.35 | 0.66 ± 0.53 |
| Nondominant side | 0.58 ± 0.79 | 0.54 ± 0.84 | 0.61 ± 0.84 | 0.53 ± 0.63 | 0.86 ± 0.85 |
SD, standard deviation; FCR, flexor carpi radialis; FCU, flexor carpi ulnaris; FDS, flexor digitorum superficial; PT, pronator teres.