Efficacy of Arm Care Programs for Injury Prevention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Arm care programs for baseball players are an increasingly popular area of interest for players, parents, coaches, sports performance staff, and team physicians. Once a general afterthought, the design of arm care programs is now heavily scrutinized in order to maximize performance and help reduce injury risk. Given the recent spike in interest for arm care programs for baseball players of all ages, the purpose of this work is to review the relevant literature regarding the efficacy of arm care programs and to discuss the authors' preferred, evidence-based principles for arm care programs. RECENT FINDINGS: Arm care programs appear to provide favorable results for performance, maintenance of strength and flexibility, and reduced injury risk. These programs should be tailored to the demands of the athlete, which can change based on the time of year and physical demands of the player's position. A good program will incorporate flexibility, strengthening, proprioception, and joint mobility for the entire kinetic chain. Appropriate warm-up and cool-down periods are also important. Arm care programs should start with basic movement patterns before progressing to more advanced, coordinated exercises. Arm care programs are an important piece of a holistic approach to caring for the throwing arm of baseball athletes. In general, they appear to be a safe and efficacious way to help prevent a portion of throwing arm injuries. Further research is needed to determine the optimal arm care program for each athlete.

Do Professional Baseball Players With a Higher Valgus Carrying Angle Have an Increased Risk of Shoulder and Elbow Injuries?

BACKGROUND: There are many risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in professional baseball pitchers. The elbow carrying angle has not been studied as a potential risk factor. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to determine whether elbow carrying angle is a risk factor for shoulder or elbow injuries in professional baseball pitchers. We hypothesized that pitchers with a higher elbow carrying angle would be less likely to sustain an injury during the season than pitchers with a lower elbow carrying angle. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: All professional pitchers for a single baseball club during the 2018 season had the carrying angle of both elbows measured at spring training by a single examiner. The pitchers were followed prospectively throughout the season. Shoulder and elbow injuries were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 52 pitchers (21 [40%] Major League Baseball and 31 [60%] Minor League Baseball) were included. During the season, 23 (44%) pitchers became injured. The mean carrying angle in the throwing arm was 12.5° ± 4.2° versus 9.9° ± 2.8° in the nonthrowing arm (P < .001). Comparing the injured and noninjured groups, there were no differences in level of play (P = .870), throwing hand dominance (P = .683), batting hand dominance (P = .554), throwing-side carrying angle (P = .373), nonthrowing-side carrying angle (P = .773), or side-to-side difference in carrying angle (P = .481). CONCLUSION: The elbow carrying angle was not associated with an injury risk during a single season in professional baseball pitchers.

Return to Throwing after Shoulder or Elbow Injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Throwing places high demands on the human body, and specific characteristics are developed over time unique to these athletes. When returning to throw after injury, it is important to follow a criterion-based progression that allows the body to be prepared appropriately for the stresses that throwing will require. There is currently a void in the literature for criteria-based progression that helps these athletes return to the highest level of play. RECENT FINDINGS: As injury rates continue to rise in baseball, there is increased evidence showing contributions of the core and lower extremity to the baseball pitch. There is also additional data showing pitcher specific characteristics such as range of motion and scapular position in this unique population. The rehab professional should take into account every phase of the pitch starting from balance through ball release when designing a comprehensive return-to-throwing program. Returning an athlete back to a throwing sport can be an overwhelming task. The rehabilitation specialist must have a sound understanding of the throwing motion as well as any biomechanical implications on the body, contributions throughout the kinetic chain, range of motion, and strength characteristics specific to the thrower as well as proper tissue loading principles. It is important that these athletes are not progressed too quickly through their programs and that a criteria-based progression is followed. They should have normalized range of motion, strength, and scapular mechanics, followed by a sound plyometric progression. Once this is achieved, they are advanced to an interval throwing program with increasing distance, effort, and volume which should be tracked for workload, making sure they do not throw more than their body is prepared for.

Rotator cuff repair: post-operative rehabilitation concepts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With improvements in surgical techniques and increased knowledge of rotator cuff healing, there was a need to identify a safe progression after rotator cuff repair. The rehabilitation specialist plays an integral role in the care of these patients, and by implementing an evidence and criteria-based model, patients may be able to return to their prior levels of function sooner with fewer complications. RECENT FINDINGS: Timing of progression for rotator cuff patients should align not only with healing but also potential strain on the involved tissue. Recent electromyography studies have identified exercises which elicit highest level of muscle activation for individual dynamic stabilizers. The physical therapist should also be aware of potential complications and be prepared to manage appropriately if they should arise. During rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair, there should be constant communication with the surgical team. Awareness of complication management, healing potential of the repaired tendon, and anatomy of the shoulder complex are critical. During the early stages, reducing pain and inflammation should be prioritized followed by progressive restoration of range of motion. When advancing range of motion, progression from passive, active assisted, and active movements allow for gradual introduction of stress to the healing construct. Even though time frames are not used for progression, it is important not to place excessive stress on the shoulder for up to 12 weeks to allow for proper tendon-to-bone healing. As exercises are progressed, scapular muscle activation is initiated, followed by isometric and lastly isotonic rotator cuff exercises. When treating overhead athletes, advanced strengthening in the overhead position is performed, followed by plyometric training. Advanced strengthening is initiated when all preceding criteria have been met. It is important that patients are educated early in the rehabilitation process so that they can manage their expectations to realistic time frames.

Current Concepts and Controversies in Rehabilitation After Surgery for Multiple Ligament Knee Injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this manuscript is twofold: (1) to review the literature related to rehabilitation after surgery for multiple ligament knee injury (MLKI) and after isolated surgery for the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), posterolateral corner (PLC), and medial side of the knee and (2) to present a hierarchy of anatomic structures needing the most protection to guide rehabilitation. RECENT FINDINGS: MLKIs continue to be a rare but devastating injury. Recent evidence indicates that clinicians may be providing too much protection from early weight bearing and range of motion, but an accelerated approach has not been rigorously tested. Consideration of the nature and quality of surgical procedures (repair and reconstruction) can help clinicians determine the structures needing the most protection during the rehabilitation period. The biomechanical literature and prior clinical experience can aid clinicians to better structure rehabilitation after surgery for MLKI and improve clinical outcome for patients.

Epidemiologic Comparison of Pitching Mechanics, Pitch Type, and Pitch Counts Among Healthy Pitchers at Various Levels of Youth Competition.

PURPOSE: To determine differences among healthy pitchers at various levels of competition regarding pitching history, pitching mechanics, and prevalence of breaking pitches. METHODS: Demographic, anthropometric, pitching history, and kinematic data were collected on healthy youth pitchers using dual orthogonal high-speed video analysis. Players were grouped by maturity level (9 to 12 [prepubescent], 13 to 15 [pubescent], 16 to 17 [mature], and 18 to 22 years [adult]). Groups were compared regarding pitch counts, pitching mechanics, and use of breaking pitches. Mechanics were assessed for favorable observational parameters (e.g., closed foot orientation at foot-strike) and measurable parameters at cocking, foot-strike, and ball release (e.g., knee flexion). RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five pitchers were included. Sixty-three were 9 to 12, 130 were 13 to 15, 78 were 16 to 17, and 24 were 18 to 22 years of age. Older pitchers threw more pitches per game (41, 52, 69, and 50 by age group; P < .001), per season (766, 975, 1,079, and 881; P = .017), and per year (901, 1,343, 2,064, and 1,302; P < .001). They were more likely to pitch for multiple teams, for more than 9 months, in showcases, and in violation of pitch count recommendations. Older pitchers were more likely to maintain their hand on top of the ball, maintain closed shoulders at foot-strike, achieve hip and shoulder separation, and lead with their hips. Older pitchers achieved greater relative stride-length, greater knee flexion at front-foot contact, and increased lead hip flexion at ball release. Pitchers began throwing curveballs and sliders at 12.6 and 13.5 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As pitchers age, they throw more pitches per game, per season, and per year and are more likely than younger pitchers to violate pitch count recommendations. Older pitchers tend to pitch with improved mechanics and velocity. The proportion of pitchers throwing breaking pitches increases with age, with the greatest increase occurring between ages 12 and 13. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, cross-sectional study.

Physical Therapy Protocol After Hip Arthroscopy: Clinical Guidelines Supported by 2-Year Outcomes.

CONTEXT: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) was first described by Ganz in 2003 and is a significant cause of decreased function and mobility. Femoroacetabular impingement must be treated in an individualized, goal-oriented, stepwise fashion. This protocol was developed with biomechanical considerations of soft tissue and bony structures surrounding the hip joint. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The PubMed database was searched for scientific and review articles from the years 2000 to 2015 utilizing the search terms: hip rehabilitation, femoroacetabular impingement, and arthroscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-five of 738 patients were available for follow-up showing improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up of 61.29 to 82.02 for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 62.79 to 83.04 for Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), 40.96 to 70.07 for Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and 57.97 to 80.41 for Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS); visual analog scale (VAS) scores decreased from 5.86 preoperatively to 2.94 postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Following a structured, criteria-based program, appropriate patients undergoing hip arthroscopy may achieve excellent outcomes and return to full independent activities of daily living as well as sport.

Epidemiology, Treatment, and Prevention of Lumbar Spine Injuries in Major League Baseball Players.

In recent years, increased attention has been paid to injuries occurring in Major League Baseball (MLB) players. Although most of the current orthopedic literature regarding baseball injuries pertains to the shoulder and elbow, lumbar spine injuries are another common reason for time out of play. Back and core injuries may represent as many as 12% of all injuries that result in time out of play from MLB. This high rate of injury is likely related to the critical role that the spine plays in every major baseball-related movement. Linking the upper extremities to the hips and lower extremities, a healthy, strong, and stable spine and core is a prerequisite for performance in all levels of baseball. It has been well documented that baseball players with poor spinal control and stabilization are at increased risk for future injury. Common etiologies of lumbar injuries include stress fractures, muscle injury, annular tears with or without disc herniation, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, and stenosis. This review discusses the epidemiology of spinal injuries in baseball. Special attention is paid to the role of the spine in baseball-related activities, common injuries, tips for making the correct diagnosis, treatment options, outcomes, rehabilitation, and injury prevention.

Correlates With History of Injury in Youth and Adolescent Pitchers.

PURPOSE: To determine the factors within pitcher demographic characteristics, pitching history, and pitch kinematics, including velocity, that correlate with a history of pitching-related injury. METHODS: Demographic and kinematic data were collected on healthy youth and adolescent pitchers aged 9 to 22 years in preseason training during a single preseason using dual orthogonal high-speed video analysis. Pitchers who threw sidearm and those who had transitioned to another position were excluded. Players were asked whether they had ever had a pitching-related shoulder or elbow injury. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on those variables that correlated with a history of injury. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty pitchers were included, of whom 31% had a history of a pitching-related injury. Participant height (P = .009, R(2) = 0.023), pitching for more than 1 team (P = .019, R(2) = 0.018), and pitch velocity (P = .006, R(2) = 0.194) served as independent correlates of injury status. A model constructed with these 3 variables could correctly predict 77% of injury histories. Within our cohort, the presence of a 10-inch increase in height was associated with an increase in a history of injury by 20% and a 10-mph increase in velocity was associated with an increase in the likelihood of a history of injury by 12%. Playing for more than 1 team increased the likelihood of a history of injury by 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Pitch velocity, pitcher height, and pitching for more than 1 team correlate with a history of shoulder and elbow injury. Current recommendations regarding breaking pitches may not prevent injury. Pitchers should be cautioned about pitching for more than 1 team. Taller pitchers and high-velocity pitchers may be at risk of injury.

Predictors of throwing velocity in youth and adolescent pitchers.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder and elbow injuries are a common cause of pain, dysfunction, and inability to play in overhead throwers. Pitch velocity plays an integral part in the etiology of these injuries; however, the demographic and biomechanical correlates with throwing velocity remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that pitchers with higher velocity would have shared demographic and kinematic characteristics. METHODS: Normal preseason youth and adolescent pitchers underwent dual-orthogonal high-speed video analysis while pitch velocity was collected with a radar gun. Demographic and pitching history data were also collected. Kinematic data and observational mechanics were recorded. Multivariate regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 420 pitchers were included, with a mean pitching velocity of 64 ± 10 mph. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, the most important correlates with pitch velocity were age (P < .001; R(2) = 0.658), height (P < .001; R(2) = 0.076), separation of the hips and shoulders (P < .001; R(2) = 0.027), and stride length (P < .001; R(2) = 0.016); in combination, these 4 variables explained 78% of the variance in pitch velocity. Each year of age was associated with a mean 1.5 mph increase in velocity; each inch in height, with 1.2 mph; separation of the hips and shoulders, with 2.6 mph; and a 10% increase in stride length, with 1.9 mph. CONCLUSION: Pitch velocity is most strongly correlated with age, height, separation of the hips and shoulders, and stride length.