Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
|Soft tissue mobilization and stretching for shoulder in crossfitters: a randomized pilot study|
|Jusdado-Garcia M, Cuesta-Barriuso R|
|International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 2021 Jan;18(2):575|
|8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*|
BACKGROUND: The shoulder in CrossFit should have a balance between mobility and stability. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and posterior shoulder stiffness are risk factors for overhead shoulder injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and horizontal adduction stretch in CrossFit practitioners' shoulders. METHODS: Twenty-one regular CrossFitters were allocated to experimental (stretching with isometric contraction and instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization) or control groups (instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization). Each session lasted 5 min, 2 days a week, over a period of 4 weeks. Shoulder internal rotation and horizontal adduction (digital inclinometer), as well as posterior shoulder stretch perception (Park scale), were evaluated. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of the sample. Parametric Student's t-test was used to obtain the intragroup differences. The inter- and intra-rater differences were calculated using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Average age was 30.81 years (SD 5.35), with an average height of 178 (SD 7.93) cm and average weight of 82.69 (SD 10.82) kg. Changes were found in the experimental group following intervention (p < 0.05), and when comparing baseline and follow-up assessments (p < 0.05) in all variables. Significant differences were found in the control group following intervention (p < 0.05), in right horizontal adduction and left internal rotation. When comparing the perception of internal rotation and horizontal adduction in both groups, significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization can improve shoulder horizontal adduction and internal rotation. An instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique yields the same results alone as those achieved in combination with post-isometric stretch with shoulder adduction.