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.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther ; 40(4): 230-7, 2010 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20200451

RESUMO

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-group, repeated-measures design. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate electromyographic (EMG) signal amplitude in the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and deltoid muscles during pendulum exercises and light activities in a group of healthy subjects. BACKGROUND: There are numerous rehabilitation protocols used after rotator cuff repair. One of the most commonly used exercises in these protocols is the pendulum. Patients can easily perform these exercises incorrectly, and may also perform light activities of daily living without knowing that they may be putting excessive stress on the repair. The effect of improperly performed pendulum exercises and light activities after rotator cuff repair is unknown. METHODS: Muscle activity was recorded in 13 subjects performing pendulum exercises incorrectly and correctly in both large (51-cm) and small (20-cm) diameters, and while typing, drinking, and brushing their teeth. RESULTS: Incorrect and correct large pendulums and drinking elicited more than 15% maximum voluntary isometric contraction in the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. The supraspinatus EMG signal amplitude was greater during large, incorrectly performed pendulums than during those performed correctly. Both correct and incorrect large pendulums resulted in statistically higher muscle activity in the supraspinatus than the small pendulums. CONCLUSION: Larger pendulums may require more force than is desirable early in rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair.


Assuntos
Terapia por Exercício/métodos , Contração Muscular/fisiologia , Músculo Esquelético/fisiologia , Manguito Rotador/fisiologia , Adulto , Eletromiografia , Feminino , Humanos , Contração Isométrica/fisiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cuidados Pós-Operatórios , Estudos Prospectivos , Manguito Rotador/cirurgia , Adulto Jovem
2.
Sports Health ; 2(1): 56-72, 2010 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23015924

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of autograft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are mixed, with some reports of excellent to good outcomes and other reports of early graft failure or significant donor site morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in functional outcomes, failure rates, and stability between autograft and allograft ACL reconstructions. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Evidence Based Medicine Reviews Collection), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus were searched for articles on ACL reconstruction. Abstracts from annual meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy Association of North America were searched for relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES WERE AS FOLLOWS: primary unilateral ACL injuries, mean patient age less than 41 years, and follow-up for at least 24 months postreconstruction. Exclusion criteria for studies included the following: skeletally immature patients, multiligament injuries, and publication dates before 1990. DATA EXTRACTION: Joint stability measures included Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer assessment, and frequency of graft failures. Functional outcome measures included Tegner activity scores, Cincinnati knee scores, Lysholm scores, and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) total scores. RESULTS: More than 5000 studies were identified. After full text review of 576 studies, 56 were included, of which only 1 directly compared autograft and allograft reconstruction. Allograft ACL reconstructions were more lax when assessed by the KT-1000 arthrometer. For all other outcome measures, there was no statistically significant difference between autograft and allograft ACL reconstruction. For all outcome measures, there was strong evidence of statistical heterogeneity between studies. The sample size necessary for a randomized clinical trial to detect a difference between autograft and allograft reconstruction varied, depending on the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With the current literature, only KT-1000 arthrometer assessment demonstrated more laxity with allograft reconstruction. A randomized clinical trial directly comparing allograft to autograft ACL reconstruction is warranted, but a multicenter study would be required to obtain an adequate sample size.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...