4.5 Article

Lower Trapezius Muscle Strength in Individuals With Unilateral Neck Pain

期刊

出版社

J O S P T,
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3503

关键词

cervical spine; scapula; shoulder

资金

  1. Iowa Osteopathic Education Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive and within-subject comparative study. OBJECTIVES: To examine lower trapezius muscle strength in individuals with unilateral neck pain. BACKGROUND: Previous research has established the presence of reduced cervical flexor. extensor. and rotator muscle strength in individuals with neck pain. Some authors have suggested that individuals with neck pain have limited strength of the lower trapezius muscle, yet no research has investigated this claim. METHODS: Twenty-five individuals with unilateral neck pain participated in this study. Participants completed the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) as a measure of disability. Side of neck pain, duration of neck pain, and hand dominance were recorded. Lower trapezius muscle strength was assessed bilaterally in each participant, using a handheld dynamometer. RESULTS: A significant difference in lower trapezius strength was found between sides (P<.001). with participants demonstrating an average of 3.9 N less force on the side of neck pain. The tested levels of association between NPQ score and percent strength deficit (r = -0.31. P = .13). and between symptom duration and percent strength deficit (r = -0.25, P = .22), were not statistically significant. No significant association was found between hand dominance and side of stronger lower trapezius (P = .59). 1 CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that individuals with unilateral neck pain exhibit significantly less lower trapezius strength on the side of neck pain compared to the contralateral side. This study suggests a possible association between lower trapezius muscle weakness and neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011:41(4)260-265, Epub 2 February 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3503

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据