| Literature DB >> 35949379 |
Tyler J Hamer1, Adam B Rosen2, Samuel J Wilkins2, Kristen F Nicholson3, Garrett S Bullock3, Brian A Knarr1.
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of sport specialization in high school athletes continues to rise, particularly among baseball players. Previous research has focused on the incidence of injury among specialized and non-specialized athletes but has yet to examine the level of sport specialization and pitching biomechanics. Hypotheses/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in pitching volume and biomechanics between low-, moderate-, and high-level specialized baseball pitchers. It was hypothesized that high-level specialized pitchers would have the most pitching volume within the current and previous years while low-level specialized pitchers would exhibit the least amount. The second hypothesis states that kinematics and kinetics commonly associated with performance and injury risk would differ between low-, moderate-, and high-level specialized pitchers. Study Design: Case-Control Study.Entities:
Keywords: Elbow; Kinematics; Kinetics; Shoulder; Throwing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35949379 PMCID: PMC9340844 DOI: 10.26603/001c.37259
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther ISSN: 2159-2896

Figure 1. Process for determining sport specialization level
Table 1. Mean ± Standard deviation and inferential statistics of pitcher demographics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14.36 ± 0.92 | 15.21 ± 1.25 | 16.27 ± 1.1 | 14.83, 15.73 | 6.9 | 0.003* | 0.29 |
|
| 1.82 ± 0.08 | 1.82 ± 0.1 | 1.85 ± 0.08 | 1.8, 1.86 | 0.21 | 0.735 | -0.04 |
|
| 70.49 ± 7.93 | 75.4 ± 16.38 | 82.2 ± 8.98 | 71.67, 80.29 | 2.3 | 0.050* | 0.12 |
|
| 21.29 ± 1.87 | 22.57 ± 3.52 | 24.18 ± 2.74 | 21.65, 23.69 | 2.92 | 0.045* | 0.13 |
|
| 32.05 ± 1.92 | 34.4 ± 4.06 | 36.4 ± 2.26 | 33.14, 35.45 | 3.97 | 0.01* | 0.27 |
Low = Low-level specialized, Moderate = Moderate-level specialized, High = High-level specialized, CI = Confidence interval, BMI = Body mass index *Indicates Significant Difference (p < 0.05)
Table 2. Between-group comparisons of competitive exposure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36.0 (62.0) | 29.0 (64.25) | 48.5 (60.0) | 27.6, 43.83 | 1.3 | 0.522 | -0.02 |
|
| 7.0 (13.0) | 2.5 (20.75) | 13 (20.50) | 8.8, 15.02 | 0.83 | 0.661 | -0.04 |
|
| 13.1 (42.5) | 6.0 (50.0) | 39.5 (64.0) | 24.86, 45.98 | 0.84 | 0.656 | -0.04 |
|
| 46.0 (40.5) | 30.0 (86.23) | 40.17 (38.4) | 35.11, 56.57 | 0.33 | 0.850 | -0.06 |
IQR = Interquartile Range, CI = Confidence Interval
Table 3. Between-group comparisons of biomechanical outcomes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||||
| Shoulder Horiz. Abd (°) | -34.83 (11.48) | -37.88 (30.3) | -24.01 (27.48) | -39.46, -28.94 | 2.43 | 0.297 | 0.01 |
|
| |||||||
| Shoulder Rotation (°) | 178.88 (2.66) | 177.91 (4.84) | 177.71 (3.33) | 175.89, 178.03 | 4.98 | 0.083 | 0.1 |
| Lat. Trunk Tilt (°) | 23.28 (5.91) | 27.44 (14.0) | 18.28 (16.63) | 17.63, 24.77 | 4.0 | 0.135 | 0.06 |
|
| |||||||
| Knee Flex. (°) | 46.24 (11.71) | 52.88 (18.45) | 49.15 (17.74) | 43.48, 53.27 | 3.63 | 0.162 | 0.05 |
| For. Trunk Tilt (°) | 40.69 (7.66) | 34.51 (8.83) | 40.51 (16.19) | 34.94, 40.82 | 2.65 | 0.266 | 0.02 |
| Lat. Trunk Tilt (°) | 30.22 (8.96) | 31.69 (14.41) | 22.94 (14.32) | 23.33, 30.77 | 2.92 | 0.233 | 0.03 |
|
| |||||||
| Shoulder Dist. (Nm, %BW) | 1.13 (0.29) | 1.31 (0.44) | 1.46 (0.44) | 1.18, 1.4 | 4.73 | 0.094 | 0.08 |
| Elbow Valgus (Nm, %BW) | -0.03 (0.01) | -0.04 (0.02) | -0.04 (0.01) | -0.04, -0.03 | 4.51 | 0.105 | 0.08 |
IQR = Interquartile range, CI = Confidence Interval, Shoulder Horiz Abd = Shoulder horizontal abduction, Lat Trunk Tilt = Lateral trunk tilt, Knee flex = Knee flexion, For Trunk Tilt = Forward trunk tilt, Shoulder Dist = Maximum shoulder distraction force, Elbow valgus = Maximum elbow valgus torque