4.2 Article

Scapular Dyskinesis in Elite Boxers with Neck Disability and Shoulder Malfunction

期刊

MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
卷 57, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57121347

关键词

boxing; scapular dyskinesis; shoulder range of motion; neck pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed a high prevalence of scapular dyskinesis among elite boxers, with those affected also experiencing shoulder dysfunction and neck disability. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between scapular dyskinesis and neck disability in boxers.
Background and Objectives: Neck and shoulder injuries commonly occur during boxing, and scapular dyskinesis is related to those injuries. This study investigated scapular dyskinesis with neck disability and shoulder malfunction in elite boxers. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two elite boxers participated in this study. Scapular dyskinesis was evaluated as normal, subtle, and obvious. Neck disability index (NDI), shoulder internal (IR), and external (ER) range of motion (ROM), isometric strength of IR and ER, and pectoralis minor length were measured and compared with the severity of scapular dyskinesis. Results: Thirty-eight boxers (52.7%) showed scapular dyskinesis. NDI score was significantly different (normal = 3.89 +/- 3.08, obvious = 7.36 +/- 4.95, p = 0.025). Isometric IR strength was significantly different (normal = 10.48 +/- 2.86, obvious = 8.46 +/- 1.74, p = 0.01). The length of the pectoralis minor was significantly different (normal = 10.17 +/- 0.67, subtle = 9.87 +/- 0.79, obvious = 9.47 +/- 0.85; p = 0.001), and the dominant and non-dominant arm IR ROM was significantly different (dominant = 57.43 +/- 11.98, non-dominant = 64.62 +/- 10.3, p = 0.001). Conclusions: The prevalence of scapular dyskinesis is high among elite boxers. Boxers with scapular dyskinesis presented shoulder malfunction as well as neck disability. Further investigation is necessary to examine the relationship between scapular dyskinesis and neck disability in boxers.

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

4.2
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