¿Efectividad de la técnica de liberación miofacial en el aumento del rango articular en restricción glenohumeral? Una comparación con la kinesioterapia tradicional / Effectiveness of the myofascial release technique in increasing joint range in glenohumeral restriction? A comparison with traditional kinesiotherapy

OBJETIVO: comparar la kinesioterapia tradicional con la técnica miofacial en pacientes con restricción articular interna glenohumeral. MÉTODO: estudio comparativo de 8 pacientes en un grupo de intervención (GI) y kinésico (GC), durante 8 semanas. Se comparó el pre y post test del ROM interno glenohumeral en ambos grupos mediante t de student. RESULTADOS: el grupo de la técnica miofascial demostró una amento significativo de ROM interno glenohumeral de 15,2º (p < 0,001), mientras que el grupo control no fue significativo (p > 0,05) sólo de de 6,4º. CONCLUSIONES:Un tratamiento de terapia con la Técnicas Liberación Miofascial en pacientes con déficit rotacional interno de hombro es más eficaz para aumentar el rango de movimiento articular de rotación interna glenohumeral que una técnica tradicional y conservadora.

OBJETIVE: to compare traditional kinesiotherapy with myofacial technique in patients with glenohumeral internal joint restriction. METHODS: comparative study of 8 patients in an intervention (IG) and kinesiotherapy (CG) group for 8 weeks. The pre- and post-test of glenohumeral internal ROM in both groups was compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: the myofascial technique group showed a significant increase in glenohumeral internal ROM of 15.2º (p < 0.001), while the control group was not significant (p > 0.05) only 6.4º. CONCLUSIONS: A therapy treatment with Myofascial Release Techniques in patients with shoulder internal rotational deficit is more effective in increasing glenohumeral internal rotational joint range of motion than a traditional, conservative technique.

Effectiveness of Mobilization with Exercise V/S Mulligan Internal Rotation MWM with Stretching in Patient with Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit

Background: The glenohumeral joint consists of dynamic and static stabilizer, which works, in concert to allow for stability and mobility through a large arc of motion, in recent years there has been significant focus on shoulder motion, particularly in overhead throwing athletes. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficits (GIRD) are common physical impairments in evaluated both adolescent and overhead sports such as baseball, cricket, and tennis. Therefore the aim of the study firstly was to determine the effectiveness of mobilization with exercise in patients with glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and secondly to determine whether mulligan internal rotation MWM with stretching in patients with glenohumeral internal rotation deficit. Materials and methods: 60 patients were included in the study which was divided into two groups; Group A and Group B, 30 patients in each group. All the subjects were randomly selected and assigned to each group. A pretest measurement with the help of two measures - Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSI) for disability, and inclinometer for an internal range of motion shoulder was Sreenivasu Kotagiri, Anup Kumar Songa, Mayuri Vijay Gad, Jaideep Lad. Effectiveness of Mobilization with Exercise V/S Mulligan Internal Rotation MWM with Stretching in Patient with Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit. IAIM, 2018; 5(5): 138-145. Page 139 done in each group. Subjects in Group-A were given mobilizations with stabilization exercise for capsule for a total of 12 minutes a minimum of 4 times per week over a 4-week period and Group-B were given mulligan mobilization with Posterior Capsule Stretching As follows, 1st day 3 glides, 2 nd day 3 sets of six glides, 3rd day 3 sets of 10 glides were given and 4th day again 3 sets of 10 was given. A patient who failed to come for 4 days with stretching performed 3–5 repetitions each repetition was held for 30 seconds, four days a week for four weeks total 16 sessions. Results: On comparing Group A and Group B for post-treatment OSI score, results showed a significant difference (p=0.001) in improvement in terms of OSI. On comparing Group A and Group B for post-treatment inclinometer score, results showed a significant difference in improvement in terms of the inclinometer. This study showed that Mulligan MWM along with stretching exercises was more effective to that patient as compared to mobilization with strengthening exercises given to a patient with glenohumeral internal rotation deficit. Conclusion: The study showed a significant difference between both the groups when the values obtained were analysed. It indicated that Group B in Range mulligan mobilization with Posterior Capsule Stretching of Motion in internal rotation and external rotation. Their scores in Index Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSI) have reduced which indicates the decreased level of disability and better functional ability.