Upper limb joint kinetic analysis during tennis serve: Assessment of competitive level on efficiency and injury risks

Abstract

The aim of this work was to compare the joint kinetics and stroke production efficiency for the shoulder, elbow, and wrist during the serve between professionals and advanced tennis players and to discuss their potential relationship with given overuse injuries. Eleven professional and seven advanced tennis players were studied with an optoelectronic motion analysis system while performing serves. Normalized peak kinetic values of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints were calculated using inverse dynamics. To measure serve efficiency, all normalized peak kinetic values were divided by ball velocity. t-tests were used to determine significant differences between the resultant joint kinetics and efficiency values in both groups (advanced vs professional). Shoulder inferior force, shoulder anterior force, shoulder horizontal abduction torque, and elbow medial force were significantly higher in advanced players. Professional players were more efficient than advanced players, as they maximize ball velocity with lower joint kinetics. Since advanced players are subjected to higher joint kinetics, the results suggest that they appeared more susceptible to high risk of shoulder and elbow injuries than professionals, especially during the cocking and deceleration phases of the serve.

Technical and tactical skills related to performance levels in tennis: A systematic review

“…There was weak evidence for greater accuracy of ball placement among advanced players compared with players demonstrating lower performance levels (Girard No evidence was found for differences in serve success rates or serve efficiency in relation to performance levels (Girard et al, 2005;Martin et al, 2014).…”

“…Table 2 shows the study authors; number, sex, age, performance level and tennis experience of subjects; measures of technical and tactical skills; and results reported in the 40 articles included in the review. Nine studies were included in the technical skills category (Girard, Micallef, & Millet, 2005, 2007Kolman, Huijgen, Kramer, Elferink-Gemser, & Visscher, 2017;Landlinger et al, 2012;Lyons, Al Nakeeb, Hankey, & Nevill, 2013;Martin, Bideau, Ropars, Delamarche, & Kulpa, 2014;Söğüt, 2017;Vergauwen et al, 2004;Vergauwen, Spaepen, Lefevre, & Hespel, 1998). Five of these studies were of high methodological quality and four were of good methodological quality.…”

“…Five of these studies were of high methodological quality and four were of good methodological quality. There was strong evidence that ball velocity produced in serves and/or groundstrokes differentiates professionals from advanced players and advanced players from intermediate players and novices (Girard et al, 2005(Girard et al, , 2007Kolman et al, 2017;Landlinger et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2014;Söğüt, 2017;Vergauwen et al, 1998Vergauwen et al, , 2004. The findings of Landlinger et al (2012) and Vergauwen et al (1998) showed higher ball velocities produced by forehand strokes compared with backhand strokes.…”

Risk Factors for Upper Limb Injury in Tennis Players: A Systematic Review

“…Type of Study Participants Sample Size Risk Factor Examined [22] Cross-sectional study Competitive junior tennis players N = 35, (M = 19, F = 16) Scapulothoracic position, muscle strength, flexibility [27] Cross-sectional study Competitive adult tennis players N = 59, (M = 31, F = 28) Age-related shoulder/scapular adaptions [32] Controlled laboratory study Collegiate tennis players N = 16' (M) Racket grip size [24] Cross-sectional study Competitive adult tennis players N = 55, (M) Racket properties [13] Prospective 2-year study Competitive junior tennis players N = 55, (M = 35, F = 20) Previous injury [23] Laboratory-based study Competitive junior tennis players N = 51, (M = 29, F = 22) Flexibility and range of motion [33] Laboratory study Ex-professional senior tennis players N = 10, (M = 9, F = 1) Glenohumeral instability and shoulder impingement [21] Cross Influence of fatigue on scapular kinematics [35] Laboratory-based study Competitive adult tennis players N = 8, (M = 8) Scapulothoracic kinematics [26] Laboratory-based study Competitive adult tennis players N = 8, (M = 8) Racket polar moment of inertia [36] Cross-sectional study Competitive junior tennis players N = 40, (M = 26, F = 14) Shoulder rotational muscle imbalances [37] Cross-sectional study Competitive junior tennis players N = 53, (M = 31, F = 22) Correlation between scapular dyskinesia and subacromial space [25] Cross-sectional study Competitive adult tennis players N = 400, (M = 323, F = 77) Racket grip N = number of participants; M = male participants; F = female participants. [29] Effect of prolonged tennis to shoulder muscle fatigue 13 (26) [20] Effect of prolonged tennis to shoulder range of motion 10 (26) [31] Prolonged tennis may affect shoulder articular cartilage 12 (26) [28] Effect of prolonged tennis on glenohumeral rotation 14 (26) [13] Previous injury 11 (26) 2 [34] 13 (26…”

The Regression Modelling of Kinanthropometric and Kinematic Variables in Relation to Ball Velocity of Nigerian Female Tennis Players

“…This is because they determine physique which affects the ability of individuals in a tennis sport especially in the serve velocity. Physical and kinematic positions of an athlete may influence the technicality and tactical aspect of the tennis ball velocity especially in the tennis serve which is referred to as the most complex stroke for winning a match (2,3). For the server to achieve a successful tennis serve, there must be movement of the whole body (4).…”