Effectiveness of glenohumeral-joint stability braces in limiting active and passive shoulder range of motion in collegiate football players

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title translated into German:Effektivität von Schultergelenksorthesen zur Einschränkung des aktiven und passiven Bewegungsumfangs der Schulter bei College-Footballspielern
Author:Weise, Keon; Sitler, Michael R.; Tierney, Ryan T.; Swanik, Kathleen A.
Published in:Journal of athletic training
Published:39 (2004), 2, S. 151-155, Lit.
Format: Publications (Database SPOLIT)
Publication Type: Journal article
Media type: Electronic resource (online) Print resource
Language:English
ISSN:1062-6050, 0160-8320, 1938-162X
Keywords:
Online Access:
Identification number:PU201011008951
Source:BISp

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of glenohumeral-joint stability braces in limiting active and passive shoulder abduction and external rotation in collegiate football players. Design and Setting: A 2-factor, repeated-measures design was used. The independent variables were brace condition (Denison and Duke Wyre harness, Sawa shoulder brace) and force application (active, passive). The dependent variables were shoulder abduction (45° braced limit) and external-rotation angular displacements. Subjects: Fifteen National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I male college football players (age = 19.9 ± 1.37 years, height = 183.2 ± 7.85 cm, mass = 89.9 ± 14.79 kg) participated in the study. Measurements: We used the PEAK Motus motion analysis system to measure angular displacements. Results: Neither brace maintained the arm position at the 45° braced limit during active or passive shoulder abduction (motion ranged from 56.8° to 73.0°). Although we did not use a priori external-rotation limits in this study, motion ranged from 71.6° to 93.9° with the braces. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant interaction effect (P = .41), but main effects were significant for brace condition and force application (P < .001). Reported differences are statistically significant. For abduction, the Denison and Duke Wyre harness resulted in 12.3° (21%) greater angular displacement than the Sawa shoulder brace, and passive abduction resulted in 3.9° (6%) more angular displacement than active abduction. For external rotation, the Denison and Duke Wyre harness resulted in 6.7° (9%) more angular displacement than the Sawa shoulder brace, and passive external rotation resulted in 15.6° (21%) more angular displacement than active external rotation. Conclusions: Preset, braced abduction motion limits were not realized during active and passive physiologic loading of the glenohumeral joint. However, protection against the vulnerable position of 90° of abduction and external rotation was attained at a preset braced limit of 45° of abduction (the exception was the Denison and Duke Wyre harness during passive external rotation). The Sawa shoulder brace was most effective for this purpose. Verf.-Referat