No abstract

Background: Baseball pitchers often participate in throwing programs that involve throwing at reduced effort levels to gradually increase the amount of stress experienced across the elbow. It is currently unknown how reduced effort pitching compares with maximum effort with respect to elbow stress and ball velocity. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the correlation between elbow stress and ball velocity with reduced effort pitching. We hypothesized that decreased perceived effort would disproportionately correlate with elbow stress and ball velocity. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Ten healthy male high school baseball pitchers threw 5 pitches from a regulation pitching mound at 3 effort levels: maximum effort, 75% effort, and 50% effort. Elbow stress, specifically elbow varus torque, was calculated for all pitches using a validated marker-based 3-dimensional motion capture system. Ball velocity was measured using a Doppler radar gun. Intrathrower variability was calculated for each effort level. Results: Elbow stress and ball velocity decreased with reduced effort throws ( P < .001 and P = .003, respectively). However, the reductions in elbow stress and ball velocity were not proportional. At 75% effort throws, elbow stress measured 81% (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.95), and ball velocity measured 90% (ICC, 0.80) of maximum, respectively. At 50% effort throws, elbow stress measured 75% (ICC, 0.93), and ball velocity measured 85% (ICC, 0.87) of maximum. Intrathrower reliability was excellent for elbow stress and ball velocity, with all ICCs ≥0.80. Conclusion: Pitching at a reduced effort level resulted in decreased elbow stress and ball velocity. However, for every 25% reduction in perceived effort, elbow stress decreased by a mean 13%, and ball velocity decreased 7.5%. When baseball pitchers attempt to throw at a reduced effort of maximum, throwing metrics do not decrease proportionately. Clinical Relevance: While pitching at a reduced effort of maximum decreases elbow stress and ball velocity, the decrease is not proportional, subjecting the elbow to more stress than intended. This has significant clinical importance to pitchers, coaches, and medical professionals in the setting of injury prevention and return to sports.

Background: Baseball pitching injuries are on the rise. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) provide immediate feedback to players and coaches, allowing for collection outside of the traditional laboratory setting with real-world application. The 4D Motion system provides kinematics throughout the pitching motion and may be beneficial for individualized programs in the throwing athlete. A systematic analysis of these sensors has not been completed. Purpose: To evaluate the validity of the 4D Motion IMU system for analyzing the baseball pitching motion compared with marker-based motion capture, and evaluate the internal reliability and consistency of the device. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Ten high school pitchers participated in this study (10 male; 9 right-hand dominant; mean age, 16.6 ± 1.3 years; mean body mass index, 24.1 ± 3.9). Participants were simultaneously outfitted with six 4D Motion IMU sensors and retroreflective markers. The pitchers threw fastballs at maximum effort off a mound at the standard height and distance. A comparison was made between the IMUs and corresponding motion capture values for shoulder external rotation, elbow flexion, chest extension, pelvis and chest rotation velocity, and rotation acceleration. Results: Significant differences were found for 5 of 7 metrics analyzed. The IMU overreported most metrics, except for elbow flexion and pelvis rotation angular acceleration, where both positive and negative errors were observed. The root mean square error and percentage errors indicated smaller discrepancies for chest extension (4°± 5°) and pelvis (38 ± 19 deg/s) and chest (96 ± 42 deg/s) rotation velocity, with elbow flexion having the largest variance (21°± 9°). Conclusion: The values of the 4D Motion IMU system should not be considered equivalent when compared with marker-based motion capture studies. The system lacked internal consistency and reliability, with angular velocities being the most consistent. Caution should be used when using the metrics provided by an IMU-based system for individualized monitoring. Clinical Relevance: If found valid and reliable, IMUs could be used for longitudinal workload monitoring, individualized throwing and rehabilitation programs, and ultimately injury prevention. This study demonstrates that the data obtained from a 4D Motion system using Gen 3 sensors are not equivalent to the data obtained from a marker-based motion capture system.