Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2026
Shoulder Rotators Isokinetic Profile According to Instability and/or Sport Specificity: Implications for Rehabilitation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cozette Maryne, Weissland Thierry, Calmels Paul, Edouard Pascal
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe the shoulder rotator muscle profiles across healthy, unstable, and athletic contexts and compare the usual peak torque (PT) method and the angular range (AR) method.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data collected cross-sectionally.
SETTING: Hospital. Each participant participated in isokinetic evaluations of the shoulder rotator muscles at 60°/s (concentric/eccentric) for both shoulders.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 239 participants with a mean age of 24.7 (7.5) years INTERVENTIONS: None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We recorded the PT and AR mean torque by 10°, and we calculated the antagonist/agonist ratios. We used a 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance with a correction for multiplicity to compare laterality (ie, side-to-side) and contexts (ie, no-overhead sports healthy, no-overhead sports with unstable shoulder, overhead sports healthy, and overhead sports with unstable shoulder.
RESULTS: Concentric PT of external rotators were significantly lower in no-overhead athletes with shoulder instability than healthy no-overhead athletes (P=.007) and healthy overhead athletes (P=.029). The AR highlighted significant (P<.05) lower concentric external and internal rotator muscles strength: (1) in no-overhead athletes with shoulder instability than in healthy no-overhead athletes; (2) in healthy overhead athletes than in healthy no-overhead athletes; and (3) in no-overhead athletes with shoulder instability than in healthy overhead athletes. No significant difference was observed in the eccentric modality or in the PT/AR ratios. Significant side-to-side differences (P<.05) between dominant and nondominant sides were reported by both PT and AR methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Only the concentric muscle profiles differed across context groups. The AR allowed for a more precise detection of shoulder muscle adaptations by identifying unique muscle signatures in the moment-angle relationship. These 10° AR measurements offer complementary information and enhance the clinical utility of isokinetic profiling compared to the traditional PT method.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data collected cross-sectionally.
SETTING: Hospital. Each participant participated in isokinetic evaluations of the shoulder rotator muscles at 60°/s (concentric/eccentric) for both shoulders.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 239 participants with a mean age of 24.7 (7.5) years INTERVENTIONS: None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We recorded the PT and AR mean torque by 10°, and we calculated the antagonist/agonist ratios. We used a 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance with a correction for multiplicity to compare laterality (ie, side-to-side) and contexts (ie, no-overhead sports healthy, no-overhead sports with unstable shoulder, overhead sports healthy, and overhead sports with unstable shoulder.
RESULTS: Concentric PT of external rotators were significantly lower in no-overhead athletes with shoulder instability than healthy no-overhead athletes (P=.007) and healthy overhead athletes (P=.029). The AR highlighted significant (P<.05) lower concentric external and internal rotator muscles strength: (1) in no-overhead athletes with shoulder instability than in healthy no-overhead athletes; (2) in healthy overhead athletes than in healthy no-overhead athletes; and (3) in no-overhead athletes with shoulder instability than in healthy overhead athletes. No significant difference was observed in the eccentric modality or in the PT/AR ratios. Significant side-to-side differences (P<.05) between dominant and nondominant sides were reported by both PT and AR methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Only the concentric muscle profiles differed across context groups. The AR allowed for a more precise detection of shoulder muscle adaptations by identifying unique muscle signatures in the moment-angle relationship. These 10° AR measurements offer complementary information and enhance the clinical utility of isokinetic profiling compared to the traditional PT method.