Sprague Peter A, Monique Mokha G, Gatens Dustin R, Rodriguez Rudy
Nova Southeastern University, Davie, FL, USA.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Oct;9(5):657-64.
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Side to side asymmetry in glenohumeral joint rotation correlates with injury risk in overhead athletes. The purpose of the current study was to identify the relationship between side-to-side asymmetries in glenohumeral joint total rotational range of motion and shoulder mobility test scores from the Functional Movement Screen™ in collegiate overhead athletes. The authors hypothesized that asymmetries of > 10° in glenohumeral total rotation would not be associated with asymmetrical findings in the Functional Movement Screen™ (FMS) shoulder mobility test.
Passive glenohumeral total rotational range of motion and the shoulder mobility test of the FMS were measured during pre-participation examinations in 121 NCAA male and female Division II collegiate overhead athletes from varied sports. Passive shoulder range of motion was measured in supine at 90° of abduction, with the humerus in the scapular plane using two measurers and a bubble goniometer. A Pearson Chi-square analysis, p<.05 was used to associate the presence of asymmetries in glenohumeral joint rotation and in the FMS shoulder mobility test in each subject.
40/114 (35.1%) athletes demonstrated asymmetries in total glenohumeral rotation. 45/114 (39.5%) athletes demonstrated asymmetries in the shoulder mobility test. Only 17 of the 45 subjects who demonstrated asymmetry on the shoulder mobility test also demonstrated glenohumeral joint rotation differences of > 10°. Athletes with asymmetries in rotation of > 10° were not any more likely to have asymmetries identified in the shoulder mobility test (95% CI=.555-2.658, P=.627).
Glenohumeral joint range of motion is one of multiple contributors to performance on the FMS shoulder mobility test, and alone, did not appear to influence results. The FMS shoulder mobility test should not be used alone as a means of identifying clinically meaningful differences of shoulder mobility in the overhead athlete. Clinicians working with overhead athletes may consider using both assessments as a complete screening tool for injury prevention measures.
Level 3.
目的/背景：盂肱关节旋转的左右不对称与过头运动项目运动员的损伤风险相关。本研究的目的是确定大学过头运动项目运动员盂肱关节总旋转活动范围的左右不对称与功能性动作筛查（Functional Movement Screen™，FMS）中肩部灵活性测试分数之间的关系。作者假设盂肱关节总旋转不对称超过10°与功能性动作筛查（FMS）肩部灵活性测试中的不对称结果无关。
在121名来自不同运动项目的美国国家大学体育协会（NCAA）二级男女大学过头运动项目运动员的赛前检查中，测量了被动盂肱关节总旋转活动范围和FMS的肩部灵活性测试。被动肩部活动范围在仰卧位、外展90°、肱骨处于肩胛平面时，由两名测量人员使用气泡式角度计进行测量。采用Pearson卡方分析，p<0.05，以关联每个受试者盂肱关节旋转和FMS肩部灵活性测试中不对称情况的存在。
40/114（35.1%）名运动员表现出盂肱关节总旋转不对称。45/114（39.5%）名运动员表现出肩部灵活性测试不对称。在肩部灵活性测试中表现出不对称的45名受试者中，只有17名同时表现出盂肱关节旋转差异超过10°。旋转不对称超过10°的运动员在肩部灵活性测试中出现不对称的可能性并不更高（95%CI = 0.555 - 2.658，P = 0.627）。
盂肱关节活动范围是FMS肩部灵活性测试表现的多个影响因素之一，单独来看，似乎不会影响测试结果。FMS肩部灵活性测试不应单独用作识别过头运动项目运动员肩部灵活性临床意义差异的手段。治疗过头运动项目运动员的临床医生可考虑将这两种评估作为预防损伤措施的完整筛查工具。
3级。
