Validity and reliability of innovative field measurements of tibial accelerations and spinal kinematics during cricket fast bowling.

The use of inertial sensors in fast bowling analysis may offer a cheaper and portable alternative to current methodologies. However, no previous studies have assessed the validity and reliability of such methods. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of collecting tibial accelerations and spinal kinematics using inertial sensors during in vivo fast bowling. Thirty-five elite male fast bowlers volunteered for this study. An accelerometer attached to the skin over the tibia was used to determine impacts and inertial sensors over the S1, L1 and T1 spinous processes used to derive the relative kinematics. These measurements were compared to optoelectronic and force plate data for validity analysis. Most acceleration and kinematics variables measured report significant correlations > 0.8 with the corresponding gold standard measurement, with intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.7. Low standard error of measurement and consequently small minimum detectable change (MDC) values were also observed. This study demonstrates that inertial sensors are as valid and reliable as current methods of fast bowling analysis and may provide some advantages over traditional methods. The novel metrics and methods described in this study may aid coaches and practitioners in the design and monitoring of fast bowling technique. Graphical abstract illustrating the synopsis of the findings from this paper.

Biomechanical risk factors of lower back pain in cricket fast bowlers using inertial measurement units: a prospective and retrospective investigation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate spinal kinematics, tibial and sacral impacts during fast bowling, among bowlers with a history of low back pain (LBP) (retrospective) and bowlers who developed LBP in the follow-up season (prospective). METHODS: 35 elite male fast bowlers; senior (n=14; age=24.1±4.3 years; height=1.89±0.05 m; weight=89.2±4.6 kg) and junior (n=21; age=16.9±0.7; height=1.81±0.05; weight=73.0±9.2 kg) were recruited from professional county cricket clubs. LBP history was gathered by questionnaire and development of LBP was monitored for the follow-up season. Spinal kinematics, tibial and sacral impacts were captured using inertial measurement units placed over S1, L1, T1 and anteromedial tibia. Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons and effect sizes were calculated to investigate differences in retrospective and prospective LBP groups. RESULTS: Approximately 38% of juniors (n=8) and 57% of seniors (n=8) reported a history of LBP. No differences were evident in spinal kinematics or impacts between those with LBP history and those without for seniors and juniors. Large effect sizes suggest greater rotation during wind-up (d=1.3) and faster time-to-peak tibial impacts (d=1.5) in those with no history of LBP. One junior (5%) and four (29%) seniors developed LBP. No differences were evident in spinal kinematics or impacts between those who developed LBP and those who did not for seniors. In seniors, those who developed LBP had lower tibial impacts (d=1.3) and greater lumbar extension (d=1.9) during delivery. CONCLUSION: Retrospective analysis displayed non-significant differences in kinematics and impacts. It is unclear if these are adaptive or impairments. Prospective analysis demonstrated large effect sizes for lumbar extension during bowling suggesting a target for future coaching interventions.

Ground reaction force, spinal kinematics and their relationship to lower back pain and injury in cricket fast bowling: A review.

BACKGROUND: Fast bowlers display a high risk of lower back injury and pain. Studies report factors that may increase this risk, however exact mechanisms remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To provide a contemporary analysis of literature, up to April 2016, regarding fast bowling, spinal kinematics, ground reaction force (GRF), lower back pain (LBP) and pathology. METHOD: Key terms including biomechanics, bowling, spine and injury were searched within MEDLINE, Google Scholar, SPORTDiscuss, Science Citation Index, OAIster, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Science Direct and Scopus. Following application of inclusion criteria, 56 studies (reduced from 140) were appraised for quality and pooled for further analysis. RESULTS: Twelve times greater risk of lumbar injury was reported in bowlers displaying excessive shoulder counter-rotation (SCR), however SCR is a surrogate measure which may not describe actual spinal movement. Little is known about LBP specifically. Weighted averages of 5.8 ± 1.3 times body weight (BW) vertically and 3.2 ± 1.1 BW horizontally were calculated for peak GRF during fast bowling. No quantitative synthesis of kinematic data was possible due to heterogeneity of reported results. CONCLUSIONS: Fast bowling is highly injurious especially with excessive SCR. Studies adopted similar methodologies, constrained to laboratory settings. Future studies should focus on methods to determine biomechanics during live play.

Are shoulder counter rotation and hip shoulder separation angle representative metrics of three-dimensional spinal kinematics in cricket fast bowling?

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between shoulder counter-rotation (SCR), hip shoulder separation (HSS) and three-dimensional spinal kinematics during fast bowling in cricket. Thirty five elite male fast bowlers were analysed using three-dimensional inertial sensors on the spine. Lumbar, thoracic and thoracolumbar kinematics were determined during the delivery stride. Spearman's pairwise correlations displayed significant associations between SCR, thoracic and thoracolumbar lateral flexion between the back foot impact and max contralateral rotation phase of the delivery stride (rs = -.462 and -.460). HSS and thoracolumbar lateral flexion displayed a significant correlation between back foot impact and max contralateral rotation (rs = -.552). No other significant correlations were observed. These results suggest SCR and HSS are modestly related to lateral flexion, leaving a large component of SCR and HSS unrelated to specific three-dimensional spinal kinematics. It is possible that this represents changes in whole spinal orientation and not resultant spinal motion. Despite this, SCR remains the only metric currently related to injury and therefore is important; however it is only a very modest proxy for more traditional descriptions of spinal motion.