Sports Physiotherapy Programme, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
J Athl Train. 2011 Jul-Aug;46(4):438-44. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-46.4.438.
The stability of the scapula in relation to the entire moving upper extremity is the key in the throwing sequence. The importance of scapular positioning in volleyball players has been well documented in the literature, but no one has compared scapular positioning between volleyball players and sedentary people.
To compare measurements of scapular mobility obtained using the lateral scapular slide test between volleyball players and sedentary participants without shoulder impairments and to compare changes in scapular mobility in players according to the number of years of sport participation.
Randomized controlled clinical trial.
University research laboratory.
A total of 121 people at a single university volunteered. Of these, 67 were sedentary (age = 24.3 ± 2.34 years, height = 1.69 ± 0.09 m, mass = 65.1 ± 11.91 kg); 54 were volleyball players from 4 professional teams and were separated into 2 groups according to their years of sport participation. The first group was named young players (n = 31; age = 17.7 ± 2.58 years, height = 1.83 ± 0.10 m, mass = 68.3 ± 12.21 kg, sport participation ≤ 9 years), and the second group was named old players (n = 23; age = 26.9 ± 3.39 years, height = 1.95 ± 4.38 m, mass = 90.7 ± 5.75 kg, sport participation ≥ 10 years).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Study participants completed a rating scale for pain and a questionnaire about demographic and shoulder problems. One assessor performed the lateral scapular slide test and additional flexibility measurements around the shoulder girdle. Flexibility (external rotation, internal rotation) and scapular position (1, 2, 3) were compared among groups (young players, old players, sedentary people) and between sides (dominant, nondominant).
In sedentary participants, we found differences for position 1 (t(66) = 3.327, P = .002), position 2 (t(66) = 2.491, P = .004), position 3 (t(66) = 2.512, P = .006), and internal rotation (t(66) = 2.592, P = .001) between the dominant and nondominant sides. In old players, we found differences for position 2 between the dominant and nondominant sides (t(22) = 2.956, P = .004). For position 2 (F(2,118) = 4.265, P = .02) and position 3 (F(2,118) = 4.702, P = .01), we found differences between young and old players. For internal rotation, we found differences between sedentary and old players (F(2,118) = 6.578, P = .002) and between young and old players (F(2,118) = 3.723, P = .01).
Clinicians evaluating overhead athletes need to remember that asymmetric scapular posture between the dominant and nondominant sides in unilateral overhead athletes might be normal and not necessarily related to injury.
在投掷序列中,肩胛骨相对于整个上肢的稳定性是关键。在文献中,已经充分记录了排球运动员肩胛骨定位的重要性,但没有人比较过排球运动员和久坐人群之间的肩胛骨定位。
比较使用侧肩胛骨滑动试验测量的排球运动员和无肩部损伤的久坐参与者的肩胛骨活动度,并比较运动员根据运动参与年限的肩胛骨活动度变化。
随机对照临床试验。
大学研究实验室。
共有来自一所大学的 121 人自愿参与。其中,67 人是久坐者(年龄=24.3±2.34 岁,身高=1.69±0.09 米,体重=65.1±11.91 千克);54 人来自 4 个职业队的排球运动员,并根据运动参与年限分为两组。第一组被命名为年轻运动员(n=31;年龄=17.7±2.58 岁,身高=1.83±0.10 米,体重=68.3±12.21 千克,运动参与时间≤9 年),第二组被命名为年长运动员(n=23;年龄=26.9±3.39 岁,身高=1.95±4.38 米,体重=90.7±5.75 千克,运动参与时间≥10 年)。
研究参与者完成疼痛评分量表和关于人口统计学和肩部问题的问卷。一位评估员进行了侧肩胛骨滑动试验和肩部周围额外的柔韧性测量。在年轻运动员、年长运动员和久坐人群之间比较了柔韧性(外旋、内旋)和肩胛骨位置(1、2、3),并比较了优势侧和非优势侧之间的位置。
在久坐参与者中,我们发现优势侧和非优势侧的位置 1(t(66)=3.327,P=0.002)、位置 2(t(66)=2.491,P=0.004)、位置 3(t(66)=2.512,P=0.006)和内旋(t(66)=2.592,P=0.001)存在差异。在年长运动员中,我们发现优势侧和非优势侧的位置 2 之间存在差异(t(22)=2.956,P=0.004)。位置 2(F(2,118)=4.265,P=0.02)和位置 3(F(2,118)=4.702,P=0.01),我们发现年轻运动员和年长运动员之间存在差异。对于内旋,我们发现久坐运动员和年长运动员之间存在差异(F(2,118)=6.578,P=0.002),以及年轻运动员和年长运动员之间存在差异(F(2,118)=3.723,P=0.01)。
评估上肢运动员的临床医生需要记住,单侧上肢运动员优势侧和非优势侧之间不对称的肩胛骨姿势可能是正常的,不一定与损伤有关。