The Efficacy of a Passive Stretching Intervention for Overhead Athletes: A Critically Appraised Topic

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Sandrey
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Moderate Level ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Passive Stretching ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Tightness ◽  
Level 2

Focused Clinical Question: Does a passive stretching protocol, whether immediate or long-term, improve range of motion and decrease posterior shoulder tightness in overhead athletes? Clinical Bottom Line: There is moderate level 2 evidence to support the incorporation of passive stretching for overhead athletes to increase range of motion or decrease posterior shoulder tightness.

The Effectiveness of Posterior Shoulder Stretching on Reducing Posterior Shoulder Tightness in Overhead Athletes: A Critically Appraised Topic

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Megan Pathoomvanh ◽  
Chase Feldbrugge ◽  
Lauren Welsch ◽  
Bonnie Van Lunen
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Tightness ◽  
Quality Evidence

Clinical Question:Are posterior shoulder stretching programs effective in reducing posterior shoulder tightness, or tightness to the soft tissue of the shoulder, in overhead athletes? Clinical Bottom Line:In overhead athletes, there is high quality evidence to support the use of posterior shoulder stretching to reduce a commonly used measure of posterior shoulder tightness. All three studies1–3 reported an increase in shoulder internal rotation range of motion following implementation of posterior shoulder stretching.

scholarly journals The Comparison of Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization and Self-Stretch Measures to Increase Shoulder Range of Motion in Overhead Athletes: A Critically Appraised Topic

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Hussey ◽  
Alex E. Boron-Magulick ◽  
Tamara C. Valovich McLeod ◽  
Cailee E. Welch Bacon
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Proper Function ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Soft Tissue Mobilization ◽  
Shoulder Range

Clinical Scenario: Shoulder range of motion (ROM) in throwing athletes relies on a balance of mobility and stability to maintain proper function and health that, if disrupted, can lead to shoulder injury. There have been several studies that address the relationship between ROM deficits and overhead injuries; however, it may be unclear to clinicians which interventions are most effective for increasing ROM in the glenohumeral joints of overhead athletes. Clinical Question: In overhead athletes who have deficient shoulder ROM, is instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) more effective at acutely increasing ROM over the course of a patient’s treatment when compared with self-stretching? Summary of Key Findings: A thorough literature review yielded 3 studies relevant to the clinical question, and all 3 studies were included. Two articles found a significant increase in acute ROM when compared with a self-stretch measure. All 3 articles showed increases in internal rotation and horizontal adduction, and 1 study reported an increase in total arc of shoulder ROM. Clinical Bottom Line: There is moderate evidence to support the use of IASTM to acutely increase ROM in the glenohumeral joint of overhead athletes. Clinicians should be aware of the variability with recommended treatment times; however, positive results have been seen with treatments lasting 5 to 6 minutes per treatment region. There is no consensus for treatment intensity, and certain IASTM tools require certification. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B evidence exists that IASTM is more effective at increasing shoulder ROM (ie, internal rotation, horizontal adduction, external rotation, total arc of motion) in overhead athletes than self-stretching measures.

Effects of Rigid and Kinesio Taping on Shoulder Rotation Motions, Posterior Shoulder Tightness, and Posture in Overhead Athletes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damla Gulpinar ◽  
Sibel Tekeli Ozer ◽  
Sevgi Sevi Yesilyaprak
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Shoulder Injuries ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Kinesio Taping ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Tightness

Context:Alterations in posture and motion patterns are thought to play a role in developing shoulder injuries in overhead athletes. Taping is widely used in the sporting population, but there are limited empirical data regarding its effectiveness.Objectives:To determine and compare the effects of rigid and kinesio taping on shoulder rotation motions, posterior shoulder tightness (PST), and posture in overhead athletes.Design:Randomized controlled trial.Setting:Athletic training rooms.Participants:Eighty-six asymptomatic elite overhead athletes.Interventions:Participants were randomly divided into 4 groups: rigid taping group (RTG) that underwent therapeutic rigid taping, kinesio taping group (KTG) that underwent therapeutic kinesio taping, placebo group that underwent placebo kinesio taping (shoulder and scapular region taping for taping groups), and control group (no taping).Main Outcome Measures:Shoulder rotation motions, PST, and head and shoulder posture were evaluated at baseline, immediately after application and 60 to 72 hours after application for all groups.Results:Glenohumeral internal rotation increased immediately (P < .001) and at 60 to 72 hours after application in the KTG (P = .01), whereas it decreased immediately after application in the RTG (P < .001). Immediately after application, total rotation range of motion increased in the KTG (P =.02) and decreased in the RTG (P < .001), and there was a difference between groups (P = .02). Immediately after application, PST increased in the RTG (P < .001); after 60 to 72 hours, it decreased in the KTG (P = .04) and increased in the RTG (P = .01). Posture outcomes did not change significantly (P > .05).Conclusions:Kinesio taping may improve and rigid taping may worsen glenohumeral internal rotation and PST in overhead athletes. For increasing total rotation range of motion, kinesio taping is superior to rigid taping. Taping did not affect posture. Short-term kinesio taping in overhead athletes may be useful to improve glenohumeral internal rotation, total rotation range of motion, and PST.

The Effectiveness of Shoulder Stretching and Joint Mobilizations on Posterior Shoulder Tightness

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole D. Harshbarger ◽  
Bradly L. Eppelheimer ◽  
Tamara C. Valovich McLeod ◽  
Cailee Welch McCarty
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Treatment Interventions ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Shoulder Impingement ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Overhead Throwing ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Tightness

Clinical Scenario:It has been suggested that posterior shoulder tightness is a common contributor to shoulder impingement in overhead-throwing athletes. The incidence of shoulder pain in the general population has been reported to be as high as 27%, and as many as 74% of the patients who were seen for shoulder issues had signs of impingement. Particularly regarding physically active adults, shoulder impingement is frequent among overhead-throwing athletes and may lead to lost participation in sport, as well as other injuries including labral pathologies. Therefore, finding an effective mechanism to reduce posterior shoulder tightness in overhead athletes is important and may help prevent impingement-type injuries. Typically, posterior shoulder tightness is identified by measuring horizontal humeral adduction; although another clinical measure that is commonly used is the bilateral measurement of glenohumeral internal-rotation (IR) range of motion (ROM). It is important to note, however, that the measurement of glenohumeral IR ROM specifically aims to identify glenohumeral IR ROM deficits (GIRD). Although GIRD is believed to be a leading contributor to posterior shoulder tightness, this measure alone may not capture the full spectrum of posterior shoulder tightness. While treatment interventions to correct any ROM deficits typically include a stretching protocol to help increase IR, joint mobilizations have been found to produce greater mobility of soft tissue and capsular joints. However, it is unclear whether the combination of both joint mobilizations and a stretching protocol will produce even larger gains of ROM that will have greater longevity for the patient suffering from posterior shoulder tightness.Focused Clinical Question:Does the use of joint mobilizations combined with a stretching protocol more effectively increase glenohumeral IR ROM in adult physically active individuals who participate in overhead sports and are suffering from posterior shoulder tightness, compared with a stretching protocol alone?

Comparing the Effects of Total Motion Release® to Stretching for Increases in Internal and External Rotation at the Shoulder

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Nicole Sordello ◽  
Tenli Bright ◽  
Taylor Truesdell ◽  
Jace Puckett ◽  
Jayme G. Baker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Shoulder Range

Focused Clinical Question: What are the effects of Total Motion Release® on shoulder range of motion compared with stretching in overhead athletes? Clinical Bottom Line: Total Motion Release® significantly improved acute dominant and nondominant shoulder ROM compared with dynamic warm-up and stretching protocols. The application of Total Motion Release® was also found to produce significantly larger increases in shoulder ROM and took substantially less time to complete when compared with dynamic warm-up protocols.

Which Low Back Instability Tests Should Be Incorporated Into a Stabilization Classification Exam for Athletes?: A Critically Appraised Topic

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-61
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Sandrey
Keyword(s):  
Moderate Level ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Prone Instability Test ◽  
Level 2

Clinical Question: Is there sufficient evidence to determine which low back instability tests should be incorporated into a stabilization classification exam for athletes? Clinical Bottom Line: There is moderate level 2 evidence to include, but not to use in isolation, the prone instability test along with other instability tests in a stabilization classification exam.

Influence of Humeral Torsion on Interpretation of Posterior Shoulder Tightness Measures in Overhead Athletes

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 366-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph B Myers ◽  
Sakiko Oyama ◽  
Benjamin M Goerger ◽  
Terri Jo Rucinski ◽  
J Troy Blackburn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Humeral Torsion ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Tightness

The Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Flexibility of the Lower Extremity: A Critically Appraised Topic

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine M. Feldbauer ◽  
Brittany A. Smith ◽  
Bonnie Van Lunen
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Use Of Self ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Myofascial Release ◽  
Low Level

Clinical Question:Does self-myofascial release improve lower extremity fexibility or range of motion in physically active individuals?Clinical Bottom Line:There is low-level evidence to support the use of self-my-ofascial release to increase range of motion and fexibility in the lower extremity.

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

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert C. Manske ◽  
Matt Meschke ◽  
Andrew Porter ◽  
Barbara Smith ◽  
Michael Reiman
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Intervention Period ◽  
Joint Mobilization ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Posterior Shoulder ◽  
Rotation Motion ◽  
Posterior Shoulder Tightness

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document