Yeol-Oh Kim1, Yoon-Ju Jo1, Si-Hyun Kim2, Kyue-Nam Park1. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Medical Sciences, Jeonju University, South Korea. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Sangji University, Wonju, South Korea.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Deficient glenohumeral rotational range of motion (ROM) is a risk factor for shoulder pain. Adapted ROM of the trunk and hip in response to loss of glenohumeral ROM has been suggested, as the nature of baseball leads to ROM adaptations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the bilateral rotational ROM values of the trunk and glenohumeral and hip joints in adolescent baseball players with or without shoulder pain and to measure the correlation between shoulder-pain intensity and bilateral rotational ROM values for each body area. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-five adolescent baseball players (60 with shoulder pain, 35 without shoulder pain). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Bilateral trunk rotation and internal rotation, external rotation, and total rotation of the dominant and nondominant glenohumeral and hip joints. RESULTS: Glenohumeral and hip ROM did not differ between groups, and pain intensity and rotational ROM were not related in either joint. Trunk rotational ROM was greater in the pain group than in the control group (dominant side = 48.8° ± 14.2° versus 41.8° ± 11.9°, respectively; nondominant side = 45.1° ± 14.2° versus 38.9° ± 7.7°, respectively; P values < .05), although the difference was clinically small (mean differences = 7.0° ± 2.7° [95% confidence interval = 1.7, 12.4] on the dominant side, P = .01, and 6.1° ± 2.7° [95% confidence interval = 0.8, 11.5] on the nondominant side, P = .03). Positive but low correlations in all players (ρ = 0.27, P = .01) and in those with shoulder pain (ρ = 0.36, P = .001) were present between shoulder-pain intensity and trunk rotational ROM toward the dominant side. CONCLUSIONS: We found no clinical relationship between shoulder pain and rotational ROM and no clinical differences in rotational ROM values between players with and those without shoulder pain.
CONTEXT: Deficient glenohumeral rotational range of motion (ROM) is a risk factor for shoulder pain. Adapted ROM of the trunk and hip in response to loss of glenohumeral ROM has been suggested, as the nature of baseball leads to ROM adaptations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the bilateral rotational ROM values of the trunk and glenohumeral and hip joints in adolescent baseball players with or without shoulder pain and to measure the correlation between shoulder-pain intensity and bilateral rotational ROM values for each body area. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-five adolescent baseball players (60 with shoulder pain, 35 without shoulder pain). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Bilateral trunk rotation and internal rotation, external rotation, and total rotation of the dominant and nondominant glenohumeral and hip joints. RESULTS: Glenohumeral and hip ROM did not differ between groups, and pain intensity and rotational ROM were not related in either joint. Trunk rotational ROM was greater in the pain group than in the control group (dominant side = 48.8° ± 14.2° versus 41.8° ± 11.9°, respectively; nondominant side = 45.1° ± 14.2° versus 38.9° ± 7.7°, respectively; P values < .05), although the difference was clinically small (mean differences = 7.0° ± 2.7° [95% confidence interval = 1.7, 12.4] on the dominant side, P = .01, and 6.1° ± 2.7° [95% confidence interval = 0.8, 11.5] on the nondominant side, P = .03). Positive but low correlations in all players (ρ = 0.27, P = .01) and in those with shoulder pain (ρ = 0.36, P = .001) were present between shoulder-pain intensity and trunk rotational ROM toward the dominant side. CONCLUSIONS: We found no clinical relationship between shoulder pain and rotational ROM and no clinical differences in rotational ROM values between players with and those without shoulder pain.
Authors: Heber C Crockett; Lyndon B Gross; Kevin E Wilk; Martin L Schwartz; Jamie Reed; Jay O'Mara; Michael T Reilly; Jeffery R Dugas; Keith Meister; Stephen Lyman; James R Andrews Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Ellen Shanley; Mitchell J Rauh; Lori A Michener; Todd S Ellenbecker; J Craig Garrison; Charles A Thigpen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Eric L Sauers; Kellie C Huxel Bliven; Michael P Johnson; Susan Falsone; Sheri Walters Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Igor Tak; Philip Glasgow; Rob Langhout; Adam Weir; Gino Kerkhoffs; Rintje Agricola Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 6.202