| Literature DB >> 33912614 |
Hitoshi Shitara1, Tsuyoshi Tajika1, Takuro Kuboi1, Tsuyoshi Ichinose1, Tsuyoshi Sasaki1, Noritaka Hamano1, Fumitaka Endo1, Masataka Kamiyama1, Ryosuke Miyamoto1, Kurumi Kakase1, Atsushi Yamamoto1, Tsutomu Kobayashi1, Kenji Takagishi1, Hirotaka Chikuda1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth baseball players who experience elbow pain during the season frequently exhibit radiographic elbow abnormalities. However, it is unknown whether asymptomatic elbow abnormalities are risk factors for in-season elbow injuries.Entities:
Keywords: baseball; diagnostic ultrasonography; elbow; imaging; injury prevention; medial epicondyle apophysitis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33912614 PMCID: PMC8050762 DOI: 10.1177/2325967120986791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.Longitudinal ultrasound images of the medial elbow joint. (A) Medial epicondyle apophysitis. The arrow indicates fragmentation of the medial epicondyle. (B) No apophysitis.
Characteristic Data and Changes in the Medial Elbow Joint Space in Each Condition
| Variable | Medial Epicondyle Apophysitis | No Apophysitis (n = 151) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline characteristics | |||
| Age, y | 10.4 ± 1.2 | 10.3 ± 1.2 | .949 |
| Height, cm | 143.1 ± 9.8 | 141.0 ± 9.3 | .154 |
| Weight, kg | 35.8 ± 8.4 | 35.2 ± 8.5 | .641 |
| Position played, n | .142 | ||
| Pitcher | 10 | 18 | |
| Catcher | 10 | 14 | |
| Fielder | 39 | 119 | |
| Findings on ultrasonography | |||
| Capitellum on dominant side, n | .549 | ||
| Normal | 57 | 148 | |
| Abnormal | 2 | 3 | |
| Elbow and shoulder ROM, deg | |||
| Elbow extension | 6.0 ± 6.7 | 6.7 ± 5.6 | .413 |
| Elbow flexion | 140.7 ± 5.8 | 139.7 ± 6.2 | .295 |
| ABER on dominant side | 112.0 ± 15.1 | 118.7 ± 13.2 | .002 |
| Difference in ABER | 6.7 ± 12.0 | 6.9 ± 12.1 | .949 |
| ABIR on dominant side | 44.7 ± 15.0 | 47.0 ± 13.1 | .261 |
| Difference in ABIR | –8.6 ± 12.6 | –6.4 ± 14.4 | .294 |
| Total arc on dominant side | 156.7 ± 22.8 | 165.7 ± 19.9 | .005 |
| Difference in total arc | –1.9 ± 14.4 | 0.5 ± 16.7 | .338 |
| HA on dominant side | 19.6 ± 10.1 | 20.6 ± 10.7 | .527 |
| Difference in HA | –9.0 ± 9.2 | –9.2 ± 10.3 | .917 |
| Shoulder strength | |||
| ABD on dominant side, kg | 8.9 ± 3.8 | 7.0 ± 2.9 | .001 |
| ABD ratio | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | .893 |
| PER on dominant side, kg | 13.0 ± 5.1 | 11.0 ± 4.4 | .006 |
| PER ratio | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | .825 |
| PIR on dominant side, kg | 14.6 ± 7.0 | 11.8 ± 5.2 | .006 |
| PIR ratio | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 1.1 | .631 |
| PER/PIR ratio | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | .300 |
Continuous variables are presented as mean ± SD. ABD, abduction; ABER, abducted external rotation; ABIR, abducted internal rotation; HA, horizontal adduction; PER, prone external rotation; PIR, prone internal rotation; ROM, range of motion.
Statistically significant difference between groups (P < .05).
Results of Logistic Regression Analysis
| Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Medial epicondyle apophysitis | 2.488 (1.152-5.376) | .020 |
| Abducted external rotation on the dominant side | 0.963 (0.936-0.992) | .012 |
Statistically significant difference between groups (P < .05).