Surface electromyography of the forearm musculature during an overhead throwing rehabilitation progression program

• Published in: Physical therapy in sport Vol. 33; pp. 109 - 116
• Main Authors: Lipinski, Cassandra L., Donovan, Luke, McLoughlin, Thomas J., Armstrong, Charles W., Norte, Grant E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-09-2018; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Athletes; Elbow; Electromyography; Flexor carpi ulnaris; Flexor digitorum superficialis; Laboratories; Muscle function; Physical therapy; Professional baseball; Rehabilitation; Sports injuries; Sports medicine; Flexor carpi ulnaris; Rehabilitation; Elbow; Flexor digitorum superficialis
• ISSN: 1466-853X; 1873-1600
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.07.006

The flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) and flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) provide dynamic stabilization to the medial elbow. It remains unclear how these muscles function during progressive throwing exercises. Our objective was to compare FCU and FDS surface electromyography (sEMG) during a throwing progression.
Crossover.
Laboratory.
Sixteen healthy males.
Participants completed a plyometric throw (PLYO), long-toss 50% (LT50), long-toss 75% (LT75), and pitch (PITCH). sEMG was synchronized with three-dimensional kinematics to assess the acceleration phase of each exercise. Peak sEMG amplitude (%MVIC) and percentage change between progressive exercises was measured. Continuous sEMG data were assessed to determine when peak activation occurred during acceleration.
FCU activity was greater during PITCH than LT50, and during LT75 than LT50. Percentage change was greater from LT50-to-LT75 than PLYO-to-LT50 for both muscles. PLYO and PITCH increased most during late acceleration, whereas LT50 and LT75 increased most during mid-acceleration.
FCU activity did not increase in a stepwise manner, and FDS remained unchanged. Each muscle demonstrated a disproportionate increase in activation during the second exercise progression (LT50-to-LT75) compared to the first (PLYO-to-LT50), suggesting that additional exercises may be required to achieve a stepwise progression relative to forearm muscle activation.
•FCU activity differed over the throwing progression, but not in a stepwise manner.•FDS activity did not differ over the throwing progression.•Muscle activity change was disproportionally largest in progression two (LT50-LT75).•Phase of peak muscle activity differed by exercise.•Additional exercises may be required to achieve a stepwise progression.