Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
|A randomized controlled comparison of stretching procedures for posterior shoulder tightness|
|McClure P, Balaicuis J, Heiland D, Broersma ME, Thorndike CK, Wood A|
|The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 2007 Mar;37(3):108-114|
|6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*|
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare changes in shoulder internal rotation range of motion (ROM), for 2 stretching exercises, the "cross-body stretch" and the "sleeper stretch", in individuals with posterior shoulder tightness. BACKGROUND: Recently, some authors have expressed the belief that the sleeper stretch is better than the cross-body stretch to address glenohumeral posterior tightness because the scapula is stabilized. METHODS: Fifty-four asymptomatic subjects (20 males, 34 females) participated in the study. The control group (n = 24) consisted of subjects with a between-shoulder difference in internal rotation ROM of less than 10 degrees, whereas those subjects with more than a 10 degrees difference were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 intervention groups, the sleeper stretch group (n = 15) or the cross-body stretch group (n = 15). Shoulder internal rotation ROM, with the arm abducted to 90 degrees and scapula motion prevented, was measured before and after a 4-week intervention period. Subjects in the control group were asked not to engage in any new stretching activities, while subjects in the 2 stretching groups were asked to perform stretching exercises on the more limited side only, once daily for 5 repetitions, holding each stretch for 30 seconds. RESULTS: The improvements in internal rotation ROM for the subjects in the cross-body stretch group (mean +/- SD 20.0 degrees +/- 12.9 degrees) were significantly greater than for the subjects in the control group (5.9 degrees +/- 9.4 degrees, p = 0.009). The gains in the sleeper stretch group (12.4 degrees +/- 10.4 degrees) were not significant compared to those of the control group (p = 0.586) and those of the cross-body stretch group (p = 0.148). CONCLUSIONS: The cross-body stretch in individuals with limited shoulder internal rotation ROM appears to be more effective than no stretching in controls without internal rotation asymmetry to improve shoulder internal rotation ROM. While the improvement in internal rotation from the cross-body stretch was greater than for the sleeper stretch and of a magnitude that could be clinically significant, the small sample size likely precluded statistical significance between groups.