Glenohumeral joint rotation range of motion in competitive swimmers

Health Sciences, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, Georgia 31419, USA.
Journal of Sports Sciences (Impact Factor: 2.25). 08/2011; 29(11):1191-9. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2011.587441
Source: PubMed


Much research has examined shoulder range of motion adaptations in overhead-unilateral athletes. Based on the void examining overhead-bilateral athletes, especially competitive swimmers, we examined shoulder external rotation, isolated internal rotation, composite internal rotation, and total arc of motion range of motion of competitive swimmers. The range of motion of registered competitive swimmers (n = 144, age = 12-61 years) was compared by limb (dominant, non-dominant), sex, and age group (youth, high school, college, masters). Significantly (P < 0.05) greater dominant external rotation was observed for both men and women high school and college swimmers, youth women swimmers, and men masters swimmers compared with the non-dominant limb. The isolated internal rotation (glenohumeral rotation), composite internal rotation (glenohumeral rotation plus scapulothoracic protraction), and total arc of motion (external rotation plus composite internal rotation) of the non-dominant limb was significantly greater than that of the dominant limb by sex and age group. Youth and high school swimmers demonstrated significantly greater composite internal rotation than college and masters swimmers. Youth swimmers displayed significantly greater total arc of motion than all other age groups. These data will aid in the interpretation of shoulder range of motion values in competitive swimmers during preseason screenings, injury evaluations and post-rehabilitation programmes, with the results suggesting that differences exist in bilateral external rotation, isolated internal rotation, composite internal rotation, and total arc of motion range of motion.

Download full-text


Available from: Bryan L Riemann, Apr 30, 2015
1 Follower
33 Reads
    • "These measurements are critical in providing baseline measures, diagnosis of disorders and evaluation of treatment through quantifying degree of change (American Physical Therapy Association, 2003; Muir, Corea, and Beaupre, 2010). They are also routinely used in screening assessments for athletes to detect asymmetry, abnormality and potentially prevent future injury (Riemann, Witt, and Davies, 2011). It is worthwhile to consider whether assessment of a joint can be carried out in a position that is relevant and specific for the athlete. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: As swimming and surfing are prone dominant sports, it would be more sport specific to assess shoulder active range of motion in this position. Objectives: To determine the reliability of the inclinometer and HALO© for assessing shoulder active range of motion in supine and prone and the concurrent validity of the HALO©. Concurrent validity is based on the comparison of the HALO© and inclinometer. To determine if active range of motion (AROM) differences exists between prone and supine when assessing shoulder internal (IR) and external rotation (ER). Design: The design included clinical measurement, reliability and validity. Methods: Thirty shoulders (mean age = 26.8 years) without pathology were evaluated. Measurements were taken in supine and prone with both an inclinometer and HALO© device. Results: Active ER ROM in prone was significantly higher than in supine when using both devices. Intra-rater reliability (within and between session) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged between 0.82-0.99 for both devices in supine and prone. An ICC test revealed a significant (p < 0.01) correlation for both devices in IR and ER movements (ICC3,1 = 0.87 and ICC3,1 = 0.72), respectively. Conclusion: This study has shown prone assessment of active ER and IR ROM to be a reliable and appropriate method for prone dominant athletes (swimmers and surfers). In this study greater ER ROM was achieved in prone compared to supine. This finding highlights the importance of standardizing the test position for initial and follow up assessments. Furthermore the HALO
    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 09/2015; 31(7):1-7. DOI:10.3109/09593985.2015.1027070
  • Source
    • "Furthermore, decreased total glenohumeral joint range of motion can contribute to shoulder dysfunction; in particular, decreased ranges of glenohumeral internal and external rotation have been found to increase the risk of shoulder injury. (Bak, 2010; Riemann, Witt, & Davies, 2011; Tate, Turner, Knab, Jorgensen, Strittmatter, & Michener, 2012; Walker, Gabbe, Wajswelner, Blanch, & Bennell, 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the incidence and prevalence of significantly interrupting shoulder pain (SIP) in young surf lifesavers and to determine association with training dosage and the 'combined elevation test'. 54 surf lifesavers aged 10-18 from the Gold Coast, Australia. Retrospective survey of SIP and training dosage. Cross-sectional measures of the combined elevation test. Retrospective. 56.5% of female surf lifesavers reported a history of SIP compared to males with 48.5%. Females had a higher combined elevation score compared to males, 28.32 ± SD 8.52 cm and 26.09 ± SD 6.64 cm, respectively. Young surf lifesavers had an incidence rate of 2.1 SIP episodes per thousand hours of training, an incidence proportion of 51.9% and prevalence of 18.5%. Combined elevation had low level positive trends with training dosages and statistically significant negative correlation with board paddling sessions per week (r = -0.287, p ≤ 0.05). Those with a history of SIP had a statistically significant higher number of sessions (p = 0.008), duration (p = 0.015) and distance (p = 0.005) swimming per week. Young surf lifesavers with a history of SIP have greater swimming dosage not associated with a decreased combined elevation score. More board paddling sessions per week decreased the combined elevation score of young surf lifesavers. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Physical Therapy in Sport 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.10.004 · 1.65 Impact Factor