Fleisig, Glenn S.

Background: The variability of throwing metrics, particularly elbow torque and ball velocity, during structured long-toss programs is unknown. Hypotheses: (1) Elbow torque and ball velocity would increase as throwers progressed through a structured long-toss program and (2) intrathrower reliability would be high while interthrower reliability would be variable. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: Sixty healthy high school and collegiate pitchers participated in a structured long-toss program while wearing a validated inertial measurement unit, which measured arm slot, arm velocity, shoulder rotation, and elbow varus torque. Ball velocity was assessed by radar gun. These metrics were compared within and between all pitchers at 90, 120, 150, and 180 ft and maximum effort mound pitching. Intra- and interthrower reliabilities were calculated for each metric at every stage of the program. Results: Ball velocity significantly changed at each progressive throwing distance, but elbow torque did not. Pitching from the mound did not place more torque on the elbow than long-toss throwing from 120 ft and beyond. Intrathrower reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75) throughout the progressive long-toss program, especially on the mound. Ninety-one percent of throwers had acceptable interthrower reliability (coefficient of variation <5%) for ball velocity, whereas only 79% of throwers had acceptable interthrower reliability for elbow torque. Conclusion: Based on trends in elbow torque, it may be practical to incorporate pitching from the mound earlier in the program (once a player is comfortable throwing from 120 ft). Ball velocity and elbow torque do not necessarily correlate with one another, so a degree of caution should be exercised when using radar guns to estimate elbow torque. Given the variability in elbow torque between throwers, some athletes would likely benefit from an individualized throwing program. Clinical Relevance: Increased ball velocity does not necessarily equate to increased elbow torque in long-toss. Some individuals would likely benefit from individualized long-toss programs for rehabilitation.

Objectives: The variability of throwing metrics, particularly elbow torque and ball velocity, during structured long-toss programs is yet to be fully elucidated. The primary aims of this study were to assess various throwing metrics through a structured long-toss program using wearable technology and to quantify the intra and inter thrower variability of these metrics at each stage of throwing. Methods: This was a descriptive laboratory study in which 60 high school and collegiate pitchers participated in a predetermined, structured, progressive long-toss program. All players wore a motusBASEBALL sleeve (Motus Global, Inc.; Rockville Centre, NY), which measured arm slot, arm velocity, shoulder rotation, and elbow varus torque. Radar guns were used to measure ball velocity. These metrics were compared within and between all pitchers at each of the following throwing distances: 90 ft, 120 ft, 150 ft, 180 ft, and maximum effort mound pitching. Intra- and inter- thrower reliabilities were calculated for each throwing metric at every stage of the program. Excellent intra-thrower reliability was defined by an Intra-class coefficient (ICC) >0.750. Acceptable inter-thrower reliability was defined by a Coefficient of Variation (CV) <5%. Results: Ball velocity significantly changed at each progressive throwing distance, but this did not consistently correlate with an increase in elbow torque. Pitching from the mound did not place more torque on the elbow than throwing from 120 ft and beyond. Intra-thrower reliability was excellent throughout the progressive long-toss program for each throwing metric. Ninety-one percent of throwers had acceptable inter-thrower reliability for ball velocity, whereas only 79% of throwers had acceptable inter-thrower reliability for elbow torque. Conclusion: Based on trends in elbow torque, it may be practical to incorporate pitching from the mound earlier in the program (once a player is comfortable throwing from 120 ft). Ball velocity and elbow torque do not necessarily correlate with one another, so a degree of caution should be exercised when using radar guns to estimate elbow torque. Given the variability in elbow torque between throwers, some athletes would likely benefit from an individualized throwing program.

Objectives: Progressive throwing programs are a mainstay of rehabilitating the throwing athlete after injury or surgery. Athletes are commonly asked to throw at reduced levels of effort (i.e. “50% effort”, ”75%,” etc) to minimize stress to healing tissues. However, it is unknown whether players’ perceived exertion matches actual exertion. The purpose of this study was to determine whether decreased effort correlates with decreased throwing metrics, whether metrics decrease to a predictable degree, and to quantify variability of these metrics within a given athlete when attempting to throw at sub-maximal effort. Methods: Sixty healthy, high school and collegiate baseball pitchers participated in a structured throwing program. After warming up, each pitcher was asked to throw five, max effort long toss throws at a distance of 120 feet. Afterwards, they were asked to give 5 throws at both 75% effort and 50% effort from the same distance. A motusBASEBALL sleeve (Motus Global, Inc.; Massapequa, NY) was worn by all players, which measured arm slot, velocity, shoulder rotation, and elbow varus torque (Nm). Ball velocity was measured in miles per hour (MPH) using a radar gun. The observed changes in throwing metrics were compared to one another across each of the throwing scenarios using a general estimating equation to control for multiple comparisons. They were also compared to the expected change to see if a decrease from 100% effort to 75%, and then to 50% resulted in proportional decreases in elbow torque and ball velocity. Intra-thrower variability was determined for each throwing metric at each degree of effort, and these results are reported using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) where an ICC > 0.75 was considered to represent excellent agreement. Results: Mean elbow torque decreased as players decreased their perceived effort from 100% (72.7 Nm) to 75% (67.3 Nm) to 50% (62.s Nm) (p<0.001). Mean ball velocity also decreased as they progressed from 100% effort (77.8 MPH) to 75% effort (66.5) to 50% effort (60.3 MPH) throws (p<0.001). However, these observed decreases in torque and velocity were much smaller in magnitude than the decreases in perceived effort. During the 75% effort throws, torque and velocity were not reduced to 75% of max. Instead, elbow torque was only reduced to 93.3% of max, and velocity dropped to 86.1% of max. Similarly, for the 50% effort throws, torque remained 86.5% of max effort torque, while velocity remained 78.1% of max. Accordingly, for every 25% decrease in perceived effort, torque only decreased 7%, and velocity only decreased 11%. These observed differences were all significantly different than the expected differences (p<0.001 for all). Intra-thrower reliability was considered excellent for all metrics within each throwing scenario: max effort, 75% effort, and 50% effort (ICC>0.75 for all). Conclusion: Measured effort was significantly greater than perceived effort during this standardized throwing program for all metrics tested. This is especially true for ball velocity and varus elbow torque. Ultimately, when players throw at what they perceive to be “reduced effort,” their actual throwing metrics do not decrease at the same rate as their perceived exertion. This has significant implications for throwers during the rehabilitation process as their elbows are likely experiencing more stress than desired. Clinicians and coaches must be aware and may want to consider transitioning to more objective measures of effort during rehabilition.

Background: During rehabilitation throwing programs, baseball players are commonly asked to throw at reduced levels of effort (ie, 50% effort, 75% effort, etc) to moderate stress to healing tissues. It is currently unknown how changes in players’ perceived exertion compares with changes in actual exertion during structured long-toss programs. Purpose: To determine whether decreased effort correlates with decreased throwing metrics, whether metrics decrease proportionally with reductions in perceived effort, and to quantify intrathrower variability. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Sixty male high school and collegiate baseball pitchers participated in a structured throwing program. A motusBASEBALL sleeve was worn by all players, which measured elbow varus torque, arm velocity, arm slot, and shoulder rotation. Ball velocity was measured with a radar gun. Each pitcher threw 5 throws a distance of 120 ft with 3 efforts: maximum effort, 75% effort, and 50% effort. Throwing metrics were compared among the 3 levels of effort to see if each 25% decrease resulted in proportional decreases in elbow varus torque and ball velocity. Intrathrower variability was determined for each throwing metric at each degree of effort. Results: All throwing metrics decreased as players decreased their perceived effort ( P < .001). However, these observed decreases were much smaller in magnitude than the decreases in perceived effort. During the 75% effort throws, elbow varus torque was only reduced to 93% of maximum and velocity dropped to 86% of maximum. Similarly, for the 50% effort throws, elbow varus torque remained 87% of max effort torque, while velocity remained 78% of max. Intrathrower reliability was considered excellent for most metrics (intraclass correlation coefficient, >0.75). Conclusion: For every 25% decrease in perceived effort, elbow varus torque only decreased 7% and velocity only decreased 11%. Thus, when players throw at what they perceive to be reduced effort, their actual throwing metrics do not decrease at the same rate as their perceived exertion. Clinical Relevance: Measured effort decreased with decreasing perceived effort, but these were not proportional. This has significant implications for physical therapists, physicians, trainers, coaches, and athletes to understand and monitor elbow stress during the rehabilitation process.

Background: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction is frequently performed in throwing athletes, but outcomes of UCL reconstruction requiring excision of bone, either within the substance of or replacing the UCL, have not been studied. Hypothesis: Clinical outcome for throwing athletes after UCL reconstruction with gracilis tendon will be less favorable for patients requiring concurrent excision of bone from within the substance of the UCL than for patients with no bone excision within, or replacing, the ligamentous anatomy. Study Design: Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: One hundred twenty pitchers of competitive levels between high school and major league who underwent UCL reconstruction using contralateral gracilis autografts completed a phone survey, and their medical charts were reviewed. Follow-up was a minimum of 2 years. Among the 120 patients, 42 (35%) had bone within, or replacing, the substance of the native UCL (bony group), and 78 (65%) had no bony abnormalities (nonbony group). The latter group of 78 underwent UCL reconstruction using gracilis tendon graft due to the absence of a palmaris longus tendon. Clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 study groups using t tests and χ 2 analyses. Results: There were no statistical differences regarding time to return to throwing, time to return to competition, postoperative complications, or need for additional surgeries. The percentage of patients who returned to the same or higher level was higher in the nonbony group (91%) than in the bony group (81%), but this trend was not statistically significant ( P = .083), likely due to a relatively small sample size. Changes in self-reported pitch control were different ( P = .029) between the 2 groups, with a greater percentage of pitchers experiencing decreased control in the bony group. Conclusion: The presence of bone concomitant with UCL damage can lead to pitch control problems after UCL reconstruction and may also decrease the chance of return to play.