Optimal Limb Position for the Stress Ultrasound Evaluation of Elbow Valgus Laxity in Baseball Players.

Background: The optimal limb position during stress ultrasound (SUS) evaluation of elbow valgus laxity has not been standardized.
Purpose: To compare 2 elbow positions (at 90° and 30° of flexion) and report which position method better represents the increased valgus laxity characteristics of baseball players.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Eighteen college baseball players with no history of elbow pain or elbow disorders who belonged to a college baseball club between April and November 2021 participated in this study. The medial elbow joint space (MEJS) was recorded by ultrasonography at rest and under valgus stress, and the difference in MEJS between the conditions was considered the valgus laxity. For all participants, the MEJS was recorded at 90° and 30° of elbow flexion. In the 90° of flexion position, the participant was positioned in the supine position with abduction and external rotation of the shoulder, and 2.5 kgf of valgus stress was applied proximally to the wrist. In the 30° of flexion position, the participant was positioned in the sitting position with abduction and external rotation of the shoulder, and 3.0 kgf of valgus stress was applied to the ulnar head. Valgus laxity on the throwing and nonthrowing sides was compared between the 2 elbow positions using paired t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests after checking the normality.
Results: There was a significant difference in valgus laxity on the throwing side between the 90° and 30° of flexion positions (1.9 vs 1.1 mm, respectively; P = .002), whereas no significant difference between positions was seen on the nonthrowing side ( P = .06).
Conclusion: SUS with the elbow flexed at 90° more clearly detected valgus laxity in the study participants than the 30° of flexion position.
Clinical Relevance: The quantitative evaluation of valgus laxity is important for baseball players to assess the risk of ulnar collateral ligament injury.
Competing Interests: The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
(© The Author(s) 2024.)