Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Int J Sports Phys Ther ; 14(6): 920-926, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31803524

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Restrictions in hip rotational motion of the baseball athlete can alter throwing mechanics in a manner that is inefficient and increases risk of injury. The purpose of this study was to assess for differences in hip external rotation (ER) and internal rotation (IR) range of motion (ROM) between baseball players with an ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tear and healthy baseball players. DESIGN: Case-control. METHODS: Eighty-seven baseball players with a UCL tear (UCL) were compared with 87 age, experience, and position-matched healthy baseball players (CONT). UCL were enrolled at the initial visit to the outpatient sports medicine facility while CONT were measured before their baseball season. Passive hip ROM (ER and IR) of the stance and lead limbs was measured in the prone position using a bubble goniometer. Hip total range of motion (TRM) was calculated by adding ER and IR of each limb. Independent t-tests were run to compare mean group differences for hip ROM (p<0.05). RESULTS: No differences between groups were discovered for hip ER on the stance (UCL = 33.9 °±9.9 °, CONT = 34.3 °±10.6 °, p = 0.8) or lead (UCL = 32.9 °±9.9 °, CONT = 34.4 °±10.0 °, p = 0.3) limbs. Similarly, there were no group differences in hip IR on the stance (UCL = 30.6 °±10.5 °, CONT = 29.6 °±9.5 °, p = 0.5) or lead (UCL = 33.5 °±17.5 °, CONT = 29.5 °±9.0 °, p = 0.1) limbs. The groups were also similar in hip TRM on the stance (UCL = 64.5 °±13.7 °, CONT = 64.0 °±17.2 °, p = 0.8) and lead (UCL = 66.4 °±17.4 °, CONT = 63.9 °±15.6 °, p = 0.3) limbs. CONCLUSIONS: When measured in the prone position, hip passive ROM is not different between baseball players with a UCL tear compared to a matched healthy cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

2.
Int J Sports Phys Ther ; 14(3): 353-358, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31681494

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that baseball players develop range of motion adaptations in their throwing arm. While some of these shoulder range of motion adaptations can lead to greater throwing velocity, excessive changes in shoulder range of motion can increase the risk of injury to the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL). PURPOSE/HYPOTHESES: The purpose of this study was to compare the passive GH-ABD ROM measures of baseball players with a diagnosed UCL tear (UCL group) to a group of age, activity, and position matched healthy controls (CONT group). The primary hypothesis was that baseball players with an UCL tear would have a greater loss of passive glenohumeral abduction range of motion in their throwing shoulder than healthy controls. A secondary hypothesis was that baseball players with an UCL tear would demonstrate similar glenohumeral abduction range of motion in their non-throwing arm and increased side-to-side glenohumeral abduction differences compared to the healthy cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective prospective case-control study. RESULTS: The UCL group had significantly greater glenohumeral abduction range of motion on their throwing shoulder (132.5 °±8.3 °) than the CONT group (120.19 °±11.2 °, p = 0.000). Similarly, the UCL group had increased glenohumeral abduction range of motion on their non-throwing shoulder (141.2 °±9.5 °) compared to the CONT group (124.1 °±11.4 °, p = 0.000). Additionally, the UCL group had a greater glenohumeral abduction difference (-8.7 °±8.4 °) than the CONT group (-3.8 °±7.7 °, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the original hypotheses, high school and collegiate baseball players that sustained an UCL injury presented with greater glenohumeral abduction range of motion in both their throwing and non-throwing shoulders compared to healthy controls. However, the finding of greater side-to-side glenohumeral abduction range of motion deficits in the UCL group when compared to the matched healthy controls confirms the secondary hypothesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...