Throwing influence Analyze on dominant and nondominant shoulder kinesthesia in overarm and underarm throwing athletes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Physical therapist, M.Sc. of Corrective exercise and sport injures, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport injures, Kharazmi University, Teheran, Iran

2 Full professor, PhD of sports biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport injures, kharazmi University, Teheran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
Since joint kinesthesia is under the influence of glenohumeral joint capsule and range of motion, and significant capsular laxity and changed range of motion in throwing shoulder is determinant in their functional and dynamic stability; the objective of this study was to compare throwing influence on dominant and nondominant shoulder kinesthesia among volleyball, bowling players and nonathlete women before an injury.
Methods:
This non-experimental, cross sectional study included 45 women in 2 purpose groups of volleyball and bowling players and 1 nonathlete control group, with age range of 20 to 30 years old from the city of Tehran.  Their shoulder kinesthesia was measured by Continuous Passive Motion device. For data analysis, descriptive statistic including mean, standard deviation, and for reliability analysis Correlation Coefficient, were performed. Kolmogorov-smirnov and Leven’s tests were performed for assessing the data normality and group variance equality. Chi-square test was used for comparing shoulder kinesthesia between dominant and nondominant sides and also for comparing between groups of volleyball, bowling players and nonathlete control group. Statistical significant was set at a level of p≤0.05.
Results:
Kinesthesiaerror differencebetween dominant and nondominant shoulders in all three groups, were not statistically significant (p=0.33). Also, No significant difference was found in comparing shoulder in each group with the same sides of other group (p=0.21 nonathlete and volleyball, p=0.19 nonathlete and bowling, p=0.63 volleyball and bowling).
Conclusion:
Capsular laxity and changed range of motion in dominant shoulder, probably with produce microtruma, have negative influence on kinesthesia. However, on the other hand repetitive circumduction motions in dominant shoulder cause perceptual learning, therefore, probably has a positive influence on increasing accuracy in signal analyze and improve kinesthesia, hence, counteract the negative influence of capsular laxity and changed range of motion on kinesthesia. Probably, repetitive circumduction motions in rehabilitation can also reciprocate the influence of microtruma that cause stability disorder and pain in dominant shoulder by neuromuscular adaptations and it may not related to the kind of overarm or underarm rotation.

Keywords

References

 
1.Wilk KE, Meister K, Andrews JR. Current concepts in the rehabilitation of the overhead throwing athlete. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30(1): 136-151.
2. Altchek DW, Hobbs WR. Evaluation and management of shoulder instability in the elite overhead Thrower. J Orthop Clin North Am 2001; 32(3): 423-430.
3. Curtis AS, Deshmukh R. Throwing injuries: Diagnosis and Treatment. J Arthroscopy 2003; 19(1): 80-85.
4. Meyers JB, Lephart SM. The role of the sensorimotor system in theathletic shoulder. J Athl Train 2000; 35(3): 351-363.
5. Donatelli RA, Wooden MJ. Orthopaedic Physical Therapy, 3rd ed. Philadephia,
PA: Churchill Livingstone, Harcourt Health Sciences Company; 2001. 3.
6. Braun S, Kakmeyer D, Millett PJ. Shoulder injuries in the throwing athlete. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 960-978.
7. Wilk KE, Obma P, Simpson CD, Cain EL, et al. Shoulder injuries in the overhead athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009; 39: 38-54.
8. Allegrucci M, Whiney SL, Lephart SM, Irrgang JJ, et al. shoulder kinesthesia in healthy unilateral athletes participating in upper extremity sports. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995; 21(4): 220-226.
9. Blasier RB, Carpenter JE, Huston LJ. Shoulder propeioception: effect of joint laxity, joint position and direction of motion. Orthop Rev 1994; 23(1): 45-50.
10. Lubiatowski P, Kaczmarek P, Ogrodowicz P, Dudzinski P, et al. throwing sport improves shoulder proprioception. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48: 629- 639.
11. Safran MR, Borsa PA, Lephart SM, Fu FH, et al. Shoulder proprioception in baseball pitchers. Sports Med 2001; 10(5): 438-444.
12. Lephart SM, Jari R.The role of proprioception in shoulder instability. Operative tech in Sports Med 2002; 10(1): 2-4.
13. Sole G, Hamren J, Milosavljevic S, Nicholson H, et al. Test-Retest Reliability of Isokinetic Knee Extension and Flexion. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2007; 88: 626-631.
14. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniqes. Wiley India Pvt; 2007:208.
15. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the     Intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J of strength and conditioning research 2005; 19(1).
16. Reinold MM, Gill TJ. Current Concepts in the Evaluation and Treatment of the Shoulder in Overhead-Throwing Athletes, Part 1: Physical Characteristics and Clinical Examination. Sports Health 2010; 2(1): 39-50.
17. Burkhart SS, Morgan CD, Kibler WB. The disabled throwing shoulder: spectrum of pathology Part 1: pathoanatomy and biomechanics. J Arthroscopy 2003; 19(4): 404-420.
18. Lintner D, Mayol M, Uzodinma O, Jones R, et al. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficits in professional pitchers enrolled in an internal rotation stretching program. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35(4): 617–621.
19.Swanik KA, Lephart SM, Swanik CB, Lephart SP, et al. The effects of shoulder plyometric training on proprioception and selected muscle performance characteristics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 11(6): 579-586.
 
 
 
Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 4, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
September 2015
Pages 44-50

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics