4.3 Article

The Relationship Between Pitching Mechanics and Injury: A Review of Current Concepts

Journal

SPORTS HEALTH-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 216-221

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1941738116686545

Keywords

glenoid labrum; biceps tendon; baseball/softball; motion analysis/kinesiology; superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) tear

Categories

Funding

  1. Biomet
  2. Ceramtec
  3. Zimmer
  4. Smith
  5. Nephew
  6. Arthrex
  7. Regentis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: The overhand pitch is one of the fastest known human motions and places enormous forces and torques on the upper extremity. Shoulder and elbow pain and injury are common in high-level pitchers. A large body of research has been conducted to understand the pitching motion. Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to gain a full understanding of all currently available biomechanical and clinical evidence surrounding pitching motion analysis. These motion analysis studies use video motion analysis, electromyography, electromagnetic sensors, and markered motion analysis. This review includes studies performed between 1983 and 2016. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: The pitching motion is a kinetic chain, in which the force generated by the large muscles of the lower extremity and trunk during the wind-up and stride phases are transferred to the ball through the shoulder and elbow during the cocking and acceleration phases. Numerous kinematic factors have been identified that increase shoulder and elbow torques, which are linked to increased risk for injury. Conclusion: Altered knee flexion at ball release, early trunk rotation, loss of shoulder rotational range of motion, increased elbow flexion at ball release, high pitch velocity, and increased pitcher fatigue may increase shoulder and elbow torques and risk for injury.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available