Modifying bowling kinematics in cricket pace bowlers with exercise-based injury prevention: A cluster-randomised controlled trial

• Published in: Journal of science and medicine in sport Vol. 23; no. 12; pp. 1172 - 1177
• Main Authors: Forrest, Mitchell R.L., Hebert, Jeffrey J., Scott, Brendan R., Dempsey, Alasdair R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2020; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adolescent; Athletic recruitment; Back Injuries - physiopathology; Back Injuries - prevention & control; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanics; Bowling technique; Cricket; Cricket Sport - physiology; Exercise; Hip - physiology; Humans; Injury prevention; Intervention; Kinematics; Knee - physiology; Laboratories; Low back injury; Male; Pelvis - physiology; Physical fitness; Risk factors; Rotation; Shoulder - physiology; Software; Torso - physiology; Youth athletes; Biomechanics; Bowling technique; Low back injury; Youth athletes
• ISSN: 1440-2440; 1878-1861
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.06.014

Undesirable bowling kinematics can increase the risk of low back injury. This study investigated if an exercise-based injury prevention program (IPP) could modify bowling kinematics in community-level adolescent pace bowlers. Cluster-randomised controlled trial. Pace bowlers from eight cricket organisations were cluster-randomised into an intervention or control group. At baseline and follow-up sessions biomechanical bowling data were collected. Between sessions, the intervention group completed an eight-week IPP while the control continued their normal cricket activity. Treatment effects (95% CI) were estimated with linear mixed models. There were significant treatment effects favouring the intervention group for shoulder counter-rotation (−3.8°; −7.2° to −0.3°) and lateral trunk flexion relative to the pelvis (−2.2°; −4.0° to −0.5°). Shoulder counter-rotation also increased in the control group by 2.2° (Cohen’s d=0.22). There were no effects of the intervention on: lateral trunk flexion at front foot contact (FFC) (1.2°; −2.5° to 4.8°), lateral trunk flexion at ball release (BR) (−0.5°; −3.0° to 2.0°), pelvis rotation at FFC (0.9°; −4.0° to 2.2°), pelvis rotation at BR (−1.1°; −5.7° to 3.6°), front hip angle at FFC (1.6°; −3.6° to 6.7°), front hip angle at BR (−1.6°; −5.0° to 1.9°), front knee angle at FFC (−1.1°; −4.5° to 2.3°), front knee angle at BR (1.7°; −5.6° to 9.1°), or ball velocity (1.1kmh−1; −7.5kmh−1 to 9.7kmh−1). The IPP maintained shoulder counter-rotation and lateral trunk flexion relative to the pelvis in the intervention group and this could attenuate injury risk. No treatment effects were observed for lower-limb kinematics.