Gulcan Harput1, Hande Guney-Deniz1, İrem Düzgün1, Uğur Toprak2, Lori A Michener3, Christopher M Powers3. 1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 2. Department of Radiology, Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey. 3. Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Performing shoulder-abduction exercises with scapular retraction has been theorized to reduce the potential for shoulder impingement. However, objective data to support this premise are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of active scapular retraction on acromiohumeral distance (AHD) at 4 shoulder-abduction angles using real-time ultrasound. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty asymptomatic individuals (10 men, 10 women; age = 22.9 ± 2.8 years, height = 169.3 ± 9.5 cm, mass = 65.5 ± 12.9 kg) were recruited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Real-time ultrasound images of AHD were obtained during nonretracted and retracted scapular conditions at 0°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of shoulder abduction. A 2-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to evaluate the influence of shoulder retraction on AHD across shoulder-abduction angles. RESULTS: A scapular-retraction condition × shoulder-abduction-angle interaction for AHD was found ( F3,57 = 4.56, P = .006). The AHD was smaller at 0° (10.5 versus 11.2 mm, respectively; t19 = 2.22, P = .04) but larger at 90° (9.4 versus 8.7 mm, respectively; t19 = -2.30, P = .04) of shoulder abduction during the retracted than the nonretracted condition. No differences in AHD were observed between conditions at 45° ( t19 = 1.45, P = .16) and 60° ( t19 = 1.17, P = .86) of abduction. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in AHD at 0° and 90° of shoulder abduction were small and did not exceed the established minimal detectable change for either angle. Our findings suggest that active scapular retraction during shoulder abduction has a minimal influence on AHD at 0° and 90° in healthy individuals. Further investigations are needed to determine whether scapular retraction influences AHD in individuals with subacromial impingement.
CONTEXT: Performing shoulder-abduction exercises with scapular retraction has been theorized to reduce the potential for shoulder impingement. However, objective data to support this premise are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of active scapular retraction on acromiohumeral distance (AHD) at 4 shoulder-abduction angles using real-time ultrasound. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty asymptomatic individuals (10 men, 10 women; age = 22.9 ± 2.8 years, height = 169.3 ± 9.5 cm, mass = 65.5 ± 12.9 kg) were recruited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Real-time ultrasound images of AHD were obtained during nonretracted and retracted scapular conditions at 0°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of shoulder abduction. A 2-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to evaluate the influence of shoulder retraction on AHD across shoulder-abduction angles. RESULTS: A scapular-retraction condition × shoulder-abduction-angle interaction for AHD was found ( F3,57 = 4.56, P = .006). The AHD was smaller at 0° (10.5 versus 11.2 mm, respectively; t19 = 2.22, P = .04) but larger at 90° (9.4 versus 8.7 mm, respectively; t19 = -2.30, P = .04) of shoulder abduction during the retracted than the nonretracted condition. No differences in AHD were observed between conditions at 45° ( t19 = 1.45, P = .16) and 60° ( t19 = 1.17, P = .86) of abduction. CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in AHD at 0° and 90° of shoulder abduction were small and did not exceed the established minimal detectable change for either angle. Our findings suggest that active scapular retraction during shoulder abduction has a minimal influence on AHD at 0° and 90° in healthy individuals. Further investigations are needed to determine whether scapular retraction influences AHD in individuals with subacromial impingement.
Authors: Ann M Cools; Vincent Dewitte; Frederick Lanszweert; Dries Notebaert; Arne Roets; Barbara Soetens; Barbara Cagnie; Erik E Witvrouw Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-07-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Amee L Seitz; Philip W McClure; Stephanie S Lynch; Jessica M Ketchum; Lori A Michener Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-03-27 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: François Desmeules; Luc Minville; Barbara Riederer; Claude H Côté; Pierre Frémont Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.638