Cargando…

A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder tightness, as demonstrated by limited internal rotation range of motion, is a suggested factor in many shoulder pathologies. Methods to increase posterior shoulder mobility may be beneficial. HYPOTHESIS: Shoulder internal rotation range of motion will not change with e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manske, Robert C., Meschke, Matt, Porter, Andrew, Smith, Barbara, Reiman, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23015927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738109347775
_version_ 1782243761385897984
author Manske, Robert C.
Meschke, Matt
Porter, Andrew
Smith, Barbara
Reiman, Michael
author_facet Manske, Robert C.
Meschke, Matt
Porter, Andrew
Smith, Barbara
Reiman, Michael
author_sort Manske, Robert C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder tightness, as demonstrated by limited internal rotation range of motion, is a suggested factor in many shoulder pathologies. Methods to increase posterior shoulder mobility may be beneficial. HYPOTHESIS: Shoulder internal rotation range of motion will not change with either of 2 interventions: cross-body stretch alone and cross-body stretch plus posterior capsule joint mobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled single-blinded clinical trial. METHODS: The study comprised 39 college-age asymptomatic participants (7 men, 32 women) who were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: stretching only (n, 20) and stretching plus posterior joint mobilizations (n, 19). All had a between-shoulder difference of internal rotation of 10° or more. Shoulder internal and external rotation was measured before and after a 4-week intervention period and 4 weeks postintervention. Participants in the stretching-only group performed the cross-body stretch on the limited side. Those in the other group (cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization) were treated with posterior joint mobilization techniques on the limited side. RESULTS: Overall means for internal rotation of the treated shoulders significantly increased over baseline at the end of the intervention period and at 4 weeks postintervention. External rotation in all shoulders remained unchanged. By the end of intervention, total motion increased significantly from baseline but decreased significantly from the end of intervention to 4 weeks postintervention. Although not statistically significant, the second group (cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization) had greater increases in internal rotation. At 4 weeks postintervention, the second group had maintained its internal rotation gains to a greater degree than those of the stretching-only group. CONCLUSION: Internal rotation increased in both groups. Inclusion of joint mobilization in a rehabilitation program created trends toward increased shoulder internal rotation mobility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both methods—cross-body stretch and cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization—may be beneficial for those with limited internal rotation range of motion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3445079
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34450792012-09-26 A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss Manske, Robert C. Meschke, Matt Porter, Andrew Smith, Barbara Reiman, Michael Sports Health Sports Physical Therapy BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder tightness, as demonstrated by limited internal rotation range of motion, is a suggested factor in many shoulder pathologies. Methods to increase posterior shoulder mobility may be beneficial. HYPOTHESIS: Shoulder internal rotation range of motion will not change with either of 2 interventions: cross-body stretch alone and cross-body stretch plus posterior capsule joint mobilization. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled single-blinded clinical trial. METHODS: The study comprised 39 college-age asymptomatic participants (7 men, 32 women) who were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: stretching only (n, 20) and stretching plus posterior joint mobilizations (n, 19). All had a between-shoulder difference of internal rotation of 10° or more. Shoulder internal and external rotation was measured before and after a 4-week intervention period and 4 weeks postintervention. Participants in the stretching-only group performed the cross-body stretch on the limited side. Those in the other group (cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization) were treated with posterior joint mobilization techniques on the limited side. RESULTS: Overall means for internal rotation of the treated shoulders significantly increased over baseline at the end of the intervention period and at 4 weeks postintervention. External rotation in all shoulders remained unchanged. By the end of intervention, total motion increased significantly from baseline but decreased significantly from the end of intervention to 4 weeks postintervention. Although not statistically significant, the second group (cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization) had greater increases in internal rotation. At 4 weeks postintervention, the second group had maintained its internal rotation gains to a greater degree than those of the stretching-only group. CONCLUSION: Internal rotation increased in both groups. Inclusion of joint mobilization in a rehabilitation program created trends toward increased shoulder internal rotation mobility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both methods—cross-body stretch and cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization—may be beneficial for those with limited internal rotation range of motion. SAGE Publications 2010-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3445079/ /pubmed/23015927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738109347775 Text en © 2010 The Author(s)
spellingShingle Sports Physical Therapy
Manske, Robert C.
Meschke, Matt
Porter, Andrew
Smith, Barbara
Reiman, Michael
A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss
title A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss
title_full A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss
title_fullStr A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss
title_full_unstemmed A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss
title_short A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Comparison of Stretching Versus Stretching and Joint Mobilization for Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measured by Internal Rotation Motion Loss
title_sort randomized controlled single-blinded comparison of stretching versus stretching and joint mobilization for posterior shoulder tightness measured by internal rotation motion loss
topic Sports Physical Therapy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23015927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738109347775
work_keys_str_mv AT manskerobertc arandomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT meschkematt arandomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT porterandrew arandomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT smithbarbara arandomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT reimanmichael arandomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT manskerobertc randomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT meschkematt randomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT porterandrew randomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT smithbarbara randomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss
AT reimanmichael randomizedcontrolledsingleblindedcomparisonofstretchingversusstretchingandjointmobilizationforposteriorshouldertightnessmeasuredbyinternalrotationmotionloss