| Literature DB >> 28174438 |
Ching-Cheng Chiang1, Chih-Chia Hsu2, Jinn-Yen Chiang3, Weng-Cheng Chang4, Jong-Chang Tsai3.
Abstract
[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to compare the internal and external rotation of the dominant and nondominant shoulders of adolescent female tennis players. The correlation between the shoulder rotation range of motion and the player's ranking was also analyzed.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent; Racket sport; Shoulder tightness
Year: 2016 PMID: 28174438 PMCID: PMC5276747 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.28.3296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Physical characteristics and year-end ranking of the participants (n=21)
| Mean ± SD | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 14.9 ± 1.5 | 12.8–17.4 |
| Height (cm) | 164.1 ± 6.1 | 155–180 |
| Weight (kg) | 57.6 ± 8.3 | 45.0–75.1 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.4 ± 2.6 | 18.4–29.0 |
| Ranking | 26.2 ± 22.8 | 2–76 |
BMI: body mass index
Internal and external rotation of the dominant and nondominant shoulders (n=21)
| Dominant shoulder | Nondominant shoulder | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal rotation (degrees) | 59.2 ± 10.0 | 64.0 ± 11.7* | −4.8 ± 9.0 |
| External rotation (degrees) | 96.2 ± 10.4 | 98.7 ± 11.3 | −2.5 ± 10.3 |
*p<0.05
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients for the correlations between the glenohumeral rotations and player ranking and physical characteristics (n=21)
| Internal rotation | External rotation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominant | Nondominant | Difference | Dominant | Nondominant | Difference | |
| Ranking | −0.552** | −0.588** | −0.093 | −0.015 | −0.121 | −0.259 |
| Age (years) | 0.075 | 0.239 | 0.099 | 0.004 | −0.101 | −0.118 |
| Height (cm) | 0.009 | 0.226 | 0.380 | −0.093 | −0.089 | −0.123 |
| Weight (kg) | 0.208 | 0.421 | 0.327 | −0.233 | −0.037 | 0.062 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.245 | 0.385 | 0.179 | −0.300 | −0.002 | 0.180 |
**p<0.01