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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |