Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Effects of Pectoralis Minor StretchingVersus Pectoralis Minor Stretching with
Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise onShoulder Kinematics in Stroke Patients
The Graduate School
Yonsei University
Department of Physical Therapy
Ilwoo Park
Effects of Pectoralis Minor StretchingVersus Pectoralis Minor Stretching with
Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise onShoulder Kinematics in Stroke Patients
Ilwoo Park
A Master ThesisSubmitted to the Department of Physical Therapy
and the Graduate School of Yonsei Universityin partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science
June 2014
This certifies that the masters thesis of Ilwoo Park is approved.
Thesis Supervisor: Chunghwi Yi
Ohyun Kwon: Thesis Committee Member #1
Heonseok Cynn: Thesis Committee Member #2
The Graduate SchoolYonsei University
June 2014
Acknowledgements
It is my pleasant duty to acknowledge those people who have influenced my work
during my graduate studies. First of all, I would like to express my sincere apprecia-
tion to my advisor, Professor Chunghwi Yi for his professional guidance and inspira-
tion. He offered genuine support throughout the process. I am extremely thankful for
his help. This work would not have been possible without his continuous encourage-
ment. I would also like to convey my gratitude to Professor Ohyun Kwon. He shared
with me his clinical experience and gave me many ideas for my research. I have
gained familiarity with the musculoskeletal system as a result of his teaching. I also
sincerely appreciate Professor Heonseock Cynn who has always given me continued
attention with his smile and kindness. His detailed comments on my study made it
better. I also appreciate Professors Hyeseon Jeon, Seunghyun Yoo, and Sanghyun
Cho, who taught me in various academic fields.
I would like to express my deep gratefulness to all members in the Graduate School
Department of Physical Therapy. Above all, I am highly appreciative to Onebin Lim,
Wangjae Lee, and Jeongah Kim for providing continued support in many ways. I
wish to express gratitude to my graduate school classmate, Myungki Ji, Minsu Cho,
and Donghwi Son, who shared the happiest hours of our coursework in two years. I’m
very thankful to Kyuenam Park, and Sungdae Choung that such a wonderful under-
graduate classmate was in the graduate school. My thanks also go to Physical Thera-
pist Bongkyun Jeon, Boram Kim, and Hoseung Lee for helping me with laboratory
work and providing precious time.
More than anybody, I would like to share my honor with my family and wife’s
family. Without their great faith in me and endless love, I could not finish my gradu-
ate study. Finally, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my wife for her love,
support, and encouragement. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my wife,
Sowook Kim and our dear fetus, Chilbok. Thank you.
- i -
Table of Contents
List of Figures ···································································· iii
List of Tables ····································································· iv
Abstract ············································································ v
Introduction ······································································· 1
Methods ············································································ 4
1. Subjects ······································································ 4
2. Experimental Equipment ··················································· 6
2.1 Three–Dimensional Electromagnetic Motion Tracking System · 6
2.2 Pectoralis Minor Muscle Length Test ······························· 7
3. Experimental Procedure ···················································· 8
4. Interventions ································································ 10
5. Statistical Analysis ························································· 13
Results ············································································ 14
1. General Characteristics of Subjects ······································ 14
2. Comparison of the Pre–Intervention Parameters Between the Two
Groups ····································································· 15
3. Scapular Posterior Tilt Angle ············································· 16
4. Humeral Forward Flexion Range ········································ 18
5. Pectoralis Minor Length ·················································· 20
Discussion ········································································ 22
- ii -
Conclusion ······································································· 27
References ········································································ 28
Abstract in Korean ······························································· 39
- iii -
List of Figures
Figure 1. The pectoralis minor muscle length test ····························· 7
Figure 2. The humeral forward flexion ········································· 9
Figure 3. The pectoralis minor muscle stretching ····························· 12
Figure 4. The scapular posterior tilt exercise ·································· 12
- iv -
List of Tables
Table 1. General characteristics of subjects ···································· 14
Table 2. Comparison of the parameters between the two groups at pre–intervention
············································································ 15
Table 3. Comparison of the two groups’ scapular posterior tilt angle pre– and post–
intervention ····························································· 17
Table 4. Comparison of the two groups’ scapular posterior tilt angle following the
6–week intervention ···················································· 17
Table 5. Comparison of the two groups’ humeral forward flexion range pre– and
post–intervention ······················································ 19
Table 6. Comparison of the two groups’ humeral forward flexion range following
the 6–week intervention ················································ 19
Table 7. Comparison of the two groups’ pectoralis minor length pre– and post–
intervention ····························································· 21
Table 8. Comparison of the two groups’ pectoralis minor length following the 6–
week intervention ······················································· 21
- v -
ABSTRACT
Effects of Pectoralis Minor Stretching
Versus Pectoralis Minor Stretching with
Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise on
Shoulder Kinematics in Stroke Patients
Ilwoo Park
Dept. of Physical Therapy
The Graduate School
Yonsei University
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a 6–week period of
pectoralis minor stretching (PMS) and PMS with scapular posterior tilt exercise
(SPTE) on the scapular posterior tilt angle, humeral forward flexion range during
active humeral forward flexion, and relative pectoralis minor length in stroke
patients. Twenty patients (13 males and 7 females) who had undergone a stroke
- vi -
participated in this study. The subjects were randomly divided into two 10–patient
groups: PMS and PMS plus SPTE. Three–dimensional electromagnetic motion
tracking system was used to measure the paretic scapular posterior tilt angle and
humeral forward flexion range during active humeral forward flexion in a sitting
position, and the relative pectoralis minor length was measured using a pectoralis
minor length test. The results showed that the scapular posterior tilt angle and
humeral forward flexion range were significantly increased during active humeral
forward flexion in both groups. The pectoralis minor length was found by a pectoralis
minor length test to be significantly increasing in both groups. In a comparison of the
PMS and PMS plus SPTE groups, the scapular posterior tilt angle and humeral
forward flexion were increased more in the PMS plus SPTE group than the PMS
group. However, the results of our study were not statistically significant. The relative
pectoralis minor length increased more in the PMS group than the PMS plus SPTE
group, but also not significant. The 6–week PMS makes the paretic arm lift higher
through increasing scapular posterior tilt. In conclusion, PMS is an effective
intervention for the paretic upper limb function in stroke patients, but PMS plus SPTE
is not superior to PMS only.
Key Words: Pectoralis minor stretching, Scapular posterior tilt exercise, Shoulder
kinematics, Stroke.
- 1 -
Introduction
A stroke is a quickly occurring disease of vascular origin, hemorrhagic or ischemic,
with noticeable symptoms and indications of the focal loss of cerebral function
(Peurala et al. 2007). One of the most ordinary results of stroke is hemiparesis on the
opposite side of a brain lesion (Messier et al. 2006). Usually, the paretic upper
extremity exhibits greater motor function loss than the lower extremity (Desrosiers et
al. 2003). After a stroke, shoulder problems are common and may lead to physical
disability in function (Mngoma, Culham, and Bagg 1999). Alignment changes in the
musculoskeletal components of the shoulder complex have been depicted in both the
flaccid and spastic stages of paralysis after a stroke and are believed to contribute to
the development of shoulder disorders in hemiplegic patients (Culham, Noce, and
Bagg 1995).
Ideal shoulder function is closely connected to proper scapular orientation and
motion (Kibler 2006; Kibler, and McMullen 2003; McClure et al. 2001; Meyer et al.
2008). It is generally recognized that the capability to keep position of the scapula at
rest and during movements/tasks (scapular positioning) is critical for optimal upper
extremity function (Hébert et al. 2002; Mottram 1997). One specific cause of
dyskinetic scapular movement may be an abnormally shortened pectoralis minor
muscle (Ludewig, and Cook 2000; McClure, Greenberg, and Kareha 2012). At the
shoulder girdle, long–term exposure to positions of increased scapular anterior tilting
and protraction is suggested to result in a shortening or tightening of the pectoralis
- 2 -
minor muscle (Kendall et al. 2005; Sahrmann 2002). Decreased flexibility of the
pectoralis minor prohibits proper scapular kinematics, particularly in upward rotation,
external rotation, and posterior tilting (Borstad, and Ludewig 2005; Muraki et al.
2009). Due to the possible occurrence of scapular dyskinesis and upper extremity
injury when pectoralis minor tightness is present, stretching of the pectoralis minor
muscle is believed to be critical in the prevention and treatment of shoulder
dysfunction (Williams, Laudner, and McLoda 2013). Stretching exercise has been
considered a basic modality of treatment in the rehabilitation field for a long time
(Gracies 2001; Stokes 2004), is freely accessible, has few or no side effects, and is
inexpensive (Jo, Song, and Jang 2013).
The abnormal kinematics caused by relative muscular imbalance in the force
couples around the scapula arises from weakness in one or more scapular rotators
(Glousman et al. 1988; Johnson et al. 1994; Kibler 1998; Mottram 1997). The
inferomedial–directed fibers of the lower trapezius may also have a strong influence
on the posterior tilt and external rotation of the scapula during arm elevation
(Ludewig, Cook, and Nawoczenski 1996), which reduces the subacromial
impingement hazard (Graichen et al. 1999; Ludewig, and Cook 2000), and makes the
lower trapezius a principle site of focus in rehabilitation. The poor scapular
positioning and asymmetric muscles observed in stroke patients is the result of
muscle imbalance between the upper and lower trapezius, with lower trapezius
weakness (Reinold, Escamilla, and Wilk 2009). The lower trapezius is a particularly
- 3 -
important muscle in shoulder function because of its role in scapular upward rotation,
external rotation, and posterior tilt (Andrews, Harrelson, and Wilk 2012).
Previous studies have investigated the effects of pectoralis minor stretching (PMS)
in healthy subjects (Borstad, and Ludewig 2005; Lewis, and Valentine 2007),
cadavers (Muraki et al. 2009), and collegiate swimmers (Williams, Laudner, and
McLoda 2013). There are no studies on the effects of PMS in stroke subjects. In
addition, to our knowledge, it has never been reported whether the additional
strengthening exercise of lower trapezius can facilitate changes in the scapular
posterior tilt angle and humeral forward flexion range during active humeral forward
flexion.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of a 6–week intervention
consisting of PMS or PMS plus scapular posterior tilt exercise (SPTE) on the paretic
scapular posterior tilt angle, humeral forward flexion range during active humeral
forward flexion, and relative pectoralis minor length in stroke patients.
The hypothesis was that PMS would increase the paretic scapular posterior tilt
angle, humeral forward flexion range during active humeral forward flexion, and
relative pectoralis minor length caused by decreasing the distance in pectoralis minor
length test. Additionally, it would be more effective to combine SPTE with PMS.
- 4 -
Methods
1. Subjects
Initially, this study began with 29 subjects who have suffered from a stroke (19
males and 10 females) in Oliver Memorial Hospital. All subjects were randomly
distributed into one of two intervention groups: the PMS group; or the PMS plus
SPTE group. However, 9 subjects (6 males and 3 females) discharged from the
hospital during the 6–week intervention. Thus, the remaining 20 subjects (13 males
and 7 females) were finally included in this study. The PMS group was comprised of
10 subjects (6 males and 4 females), and the PMS plus SPTE group included 10
subjects as well (7 males and 3 females).
The inclusion criteria were unilateral stroke subjects who, 6 months after a stroke,
had no pain in the affected arm (Price et al. 2001), scored above 24 points on the
Mini–Mental Status Examination–Korea, had sufficient cognitive ability to
comprehend the instructions (Park, and Kwon 1989), two grades or less on the
Modified Ashworth Scale (Baek et al. 2009). The exclusion criteria were as follows:
had orthopedic disorders in the affected upper limb, apparent glenohumeral joint
subluxation (more than 1.5 ㎝ between the acromion process and the humeral head)
on the affected side (Boyd, and Torrance 1992), and a cerebellar or vestibular lesion.
The present study was permitted by the director of Oliver Memorial Hospital, and
then was approved by the Yonsei University Wonju Institutional Review Board; the
- 5 -
subjects were provided with a detailed explanation of the study and gave written
informed consent prior to their participation.
- 6 -
2. Experimental Equipment
2.1 Three–Dimensional Electromagnetic Motion Tracking System
The real–time three–dimensional positions of the humerus and scapula were de-
tected using the electromagnetic motion tracking system (Polhemus Liberty 240/8
system, Polhemus Incorporated, Colchester, USA). This system was used to measure
the humeral forward flexion range and scapular posterior tilt angle in the paretic limb.
Kinematic data were collected at a sampling rate of 120 ㎐ using a two–channel de-
vice in company with the Liberty host software (version 3.0). The source (58 × 52 ×
53 ㎜), located on the subject’s right side, was placed on top of a rigid wooden struc-
ture to minimize metal interference. It produced a low–frequency electromagnetic
field that was demodulated by several sensors. To record the kinematics of the hu-
merus and scapula, the two electromagnetic sensors (28 × 22 × 14 ㎜) were attached
on the distal, flat, broad surface of the acromion and the midportion of the humerus,
just below the deltoid insertion (Roren et al. 2013).
The static accuracy of this system is 0.03 inches in root mean square (RMS) for the
X, Y, or Z position and 0.15° RMS for the sensor orientation, and the latency is 3.5
㎳ (Polhemus Specifications, 2012). The real–time streaming data were exported to
an ASCII file and analyzed using Microsoft Excel by an independent researcher.
- 7 -
2.2 Pectoralis Minor Muscle Length Test
For postural analysis, pectoralis minor shortness is examined as an unduly
anteriorly translated or protracted humeral position (Page, Frank, and Lardner 2009).
Because of its origin (the superior margins of the third, fourth, and fifth ribs) and
insertion (the medial and upper surface of the coracoid process of scapula), the
pectoralis minor muscle tilts the scapula anteriorly (Kendall et al. 2005).
Each subject was asked to lie with his/her knees flexed and arms resting by his/her
sides. The researcher marked a dot on the posterior border of the acromion. The linear
distance between this dot and the table was measured using a rigid plastic triangular
rule (Set Square, Tonglu Hengmei Stationery Co., Hangzhou, China) without exerting
any downward pressure onto the table (Lewis, and Valentine 2007). The normal
distance between the acromion and the table is 1 inch or 2.54 ㎝ (Sahrmann 2002).
The measuring technique is detailed in Figure 1. Lewis, and Valentine (2007)
reported excellent intra–rater reliability in subjects with [intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC) 0.90 to 0.97] and without (ICC 0.92 to 0.96) shoulder symptoms.
Figure 1. The pectoralis minor muscle length test.
- 8 -
3. Experimental Procedure
Before the intervention, all subjects’ scapular posterior tilt angle and humeral
forward flexion range on the paretic side were measured while the subjects lifted both
arms forward, and their pectoralis minor length was measured in a supine position.
The subjects were instructed to lift both arms to prevent trunk lateral flexion, and the
pelvis was stabilized by a therapist to prevent trunk extension (Figure 2). The subjects
performed humeral forward flexion for 15 seconds, including a 5–second waiting in
pre–lift, 5–second maximal elevation, and 5–second hold in the their peak range. At
this moment, a metronome application for smartphones, the Metronome Beats 2.2
(Stonekick, Australia) was used for movement speed and time (Kim et al. 2012b). In
order to obtain the value of change, we subtracted the average of the resting phase
from that of the holding phase. The resting and holding phase averages were
calculated, except for the first and the last second, that is, the average data of 3–
second periods were calculated. After the initial measurement, the subjects were
remeasured after the 6–week intervention period.
Subjects who participated in this study received rehabilitation treatment as
inpatients in the daytime. This may have been a confounding variable, so we made a
request for gait training in physical therapy and hand function training in occupational
therapy. For our study, the subjects participated in additional interventions after
dinner and rest, according to their feasibility. The interventions were offered 5 days
per week for 6–weeks. It is impossible for one researcher to perform interventions to
- 9 -
many subjects in the evening, so three therapists dispensed interventions to the
subjects at the same time. Prior to the interventions, the principal investigator taught
methods for PMS and SPTE to two therapists. After sufficient practice, two therapists
offered interventions like the principal investigator.
Figure 2. The humeral forward flexion.
- 10 -
4. Interventions
The interventions were PMS and PMS plus SPTE on the paretic upper limb. The
subjects in the PMS group executed gross–stretching exercise in the supine position
with the paretic arm abducted and externally rotated to 90° and the elbow flexed to
90° (Williams, Laudner, and McLoda 2013). The therapist stabilized the subject’s
trunk by placing therapist’s hand on his/her contralateral coracoids, and then gently,
passively, horizontally abducting the subject’s paretic shoulder (Figure 3). In this
study, the subjects received a gross passive stretching intervention for 10 repetitions,
holding the stretches for 30 seconds, with a 30–second resting period between each
stretch (Bandy, Irion, and Briggler 1997; Taylor et al. 1990; Williams, Laudner, and
McLoda 2013).
The subjects in the PMS plus SPTE group were instructed to first stretch the
pectoralis minor and then do the SPTE. The optimal strengthening exercise of the
lower trapezius is performed in the prone position (Ekstrom, Donatelli, and Soderberg
2003). However, the subjects in this study are stroke patients, so they are hard to
move to a prone position and cannot stay this position long because of labored
respiration. For this reason, our SPTE was done in the sitting position, which was
proposed by Mottram (1997). First, the therapist put the subject’s less affected side
hand on the affected side coracoid process, and instructed the subject to move his/her
coracoid process away from his/her healthy hand. At this moment, the therapist
- 11 -
directed the subject to move the coracoid process by gently pushing back the subject’s
healthy hand. Additionally, the therapist’s other hand tapped the subject’s paretic
lower trapezius region to evoke muscle contraction (Figure 4). For the SPTE, the
isometric exercise was performed by means of holding a position for 10 seconds, and
this was repeated 10 times (Richardson, and Jull 1995).
- 12 -
Figure 3. The pectoralis minor muscle stretching.
Figure 4. The scapular posterior tilt exercise.
- 13 -
5. Statistical Analysis
The data are represented as the mean ± standard deviation. An independent t–test
was done with the pre–intervention values to test for homogeneity of variance in the
two groups and the one–sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was examined to
determine whether there was normal distribution. The paired t–test was used to
determine the significance of changes within each group (pre– and post–
interventions), and the independent t–test was used to determine the significance of
differences between the PMS group and the PMS plus SPTE group. To compare each
outcome, Cohen’s d was utilized to calculate the effect size. To calculate Cohen’s d,
the mean of one group was subtracted from the other and divided by the standard
deviation (Cohen 1988). All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS
version 12.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The level of statistical
significance was set at α = 0.05.
- 14 -
Results
1. General Characteristics of Subjects
The general characteristics of the 20 subjects including age, gender, hemiplegic
side, modified Ashworth scale, time since stroke, diagnosis, and mini–mental status
examination–Korean are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. General characteristics of subjects (n=20)
PMS
a
group (n1=10)
PMS plus SPTEb
group (n2=10)
t p
Age (yrs) 63.4 ± 8.8c 55.1 ± 15.4 1.48 0.16
Gender (male/female) 6/4 7/3
Hemiplegic side (right/left)
4/6 3/7
MASd†
(G0/G1/G1+/G2) 2/4/2/2 2/3/3/2
Time since stroke (month)
15.6 ± 7.6 16.6 ± 6.6 –0.31 0.76
Diagnosis (infarction/hemorrhage)
6/4 7/3
MMSE–Ke 25.6 ± 1.8 26.1 ± 2.2 –0.55 0.59
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
dMAS: Modified Ashworth Scale.
† MAS was measured by elbow flexor at elbow joint (Bohannon, and Smith 1987). eMMSE–K: Mini–Mental Status Examination–Korean.
p value is the comparison of groups using an independent t–test.
- 15 -
2. Comparison of the Pre–Intervention Parameters Between the
Two Groups
Prior to the intervention, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between
the two groups in the following measurements: scapular posterior tilt, humeral
forward flexion, and relative pectoralis minor length (Table 2).
Table 2. Comparison of the parameters between the two groups at pre–intervention
(n=20)
PMS
a
group (n1=10)
PMS plus SPTEb
group (n2=10)
t p
Scapular posterior tilt (°)
18.31 ± 5.84c 20.38 ± 7.99 –0.66 0.52
Humeral forward flexion (°)
102.52 ± 24.69 114.45 ± 41.33 –0.78 0.44
Relative pectoralis
minor length (㎝) 4.31 ± 1.14 4.54 ± 1.40 –0.40 0.69
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using an independent t–test.
- 16 -
3. Scapular Posterior Tilt Angle
There was a statistically significant increase from pre– to post–intervention for the
scapular posterior tilt angle in both groups (Table 3). When comparing the two groups,
the scapular posterior tilt angle was greater in the PMS plus SPTE group than in the
PMS group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (Table 4).
- 17 -
Table 3. Comparison of the two groups’ scapular posterior tilt angle pre– and post–
intervention (n=20)
Table 4. Comparison of the two groups’ scapular posterior tilt angle following the 6–
week intervention (n=20)
Pre–intervention
Post–intervention
t p d
PMSa group
(°) 18.31 ± 5.84
c 24.73 ± 6.27 –4.775 < 0.01 1.51
PMS plus SPTE
b group
(°) 20.38 ± 7.99 34.10 ± 17.30 –3.385 < 0.01 1.07
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using a paired t–test.
Diff. t p d
PMSa group (°) 6.42 ± 4.25
c
–1.710 0.115 0.76 PMS plus SPTE
b group (°) 13.72 ±12.82
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using an independent t–test.
- 18 -
4. Humeral Forward Flexion Range
There was a statistically significant increase pre– to post–intervention for the
humeral forward flexion range in both groups (Table 5). When comparing the two
groups, the humeral forward flexion range was greater in the PMS plus SPTE group
than in the PMS group; however, the difference was not statistically significant (Table
6).
- 19 -
Table 5. Comparison of the two groups’ humeral forward flexion range pre– and post–
intervention (n=20)
Table 6. Comparison of the two groups’ humeral forward flexion range following the
6–week intervention (n=20)
Pre– intervention
Post–intervention
t p d
PMSa group
(°) 102.52 ± 24.69
c 112.88 ± 25.05 –5.746 < 0.01 1.82
PMS plus SPTE
b group
(°) 114.45 ± 41.33 128.61 ± 35.81 –4.654 < 0.01 1.47
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using a paired t–test.
Diff. t p d
PMSa group (°) 10.36 ± 5.70
c
–1.074 0.297 0.48 PMS plus SPTE
b group (°) 14.15 ± 9.62
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using an independent t–test.
- 20 -
5. Pectoralis Minor Length
There was a statistically significant decrease in the measured values of pectoralis
minor length obtained from the pectoralis minor length test pre– and post–
intervention in both groups (Table 7). When comparing the two groups, the difference
between PMS and PMS plus SPTE was not statistically significant (Table 8).
- 21 -
Table 7. Comparison of the two groups’ pectoralis minor length pre– and post–
intervention (n=20)
Table 8. Comparison of the two groups’ pectoralis minor length following the 6–week
intervention (n=20)
Pre– intervention
Post–intervention
t p d
PMSa group
(㎝) 4.31 ± 1.14
c 3.36 ± 0.74 –4.814 < 0.01 1.52
PMS plus SPTE
b group
(㎝)
4.54 ± 1.40 3.64 ± 0.91 –5.031 < 0.01 1.59
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using a paired t–test.
Diff. t p d
PMSa group (°) 0.95 ± 0.62
c
0.188 0.853 0.08 PMS plus SPTE
b group (°) 0.90 ± 0.57
aPMS: Pectoralis Minor Stretching.
bSPTE: Scapular Posterior Tilt Exercise.
cMean ± standard deviation.
p value is the comparison of groups using an independent t–test.
- 22 -
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of a 6–week
intervention with PMS or PMS plus SPTE on the scapular posterior tilt angle,
humeral forward flexion range during active humeral forward flexion, and pectoralis
minor length in stroke patients. The results of the present study showed that the
scapular posterior tilt angle and humeral forward flexion range were significantly
increased during active humeral forward flexion in both groups. Pectoralis minor
length caused by decreasing distance from pectoralis minor length test was also
significantly increased in both groups. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first
study to examine the effects of 6–week interventions (PMS, and PMS plus SPTE) on
the scapular posterior tilt angle, humeral forward flexion range during active humeral
forward flexion, and pectoralis minor length in stroke patients.
Changes in muscle tone in a resting position, limited range of motion (ROM), and
pain are common problems that occur following a stroke (Mngoma, Culham, and
Bagg 1999). Stretching is one of the basic treatment modalities used in the
rehabilitation field (Gracies 2001; Stokes 2004). Muscles’ structural, viscoelastic, and
excitability properties can be changed by stretching (Nielsen, Crone, and Hultborn
2007), and subsequently the ROM can improve (Wilkinson 1992). Increased ROM
contributes to functional mobility (Kisner, and Colby 2002). In our study, the
pectoralis minor of the paretic side in stroke patients was targeted in a stretching
exercise. After a 6–week stretching intervention, relative pectoralis minor length was
- 23 -
lengthened in the PMS group. Although the measured change was relatively small
(0.95 ± 0.62), our result indicates that the pectoralis minor length increased
significantly following the stretching exercise (p < 0.05). Our results suggest that
stretching exercises have an effect on lengthening the shortened pectoralis minor
muscle in stroke patients, and therefore improve functional upper limb movements.
Our results are consistent with previous studies of PMS (Borstad, and Ludewig 2006;
Roddey, Olson, and Grant 2002; Williams, Laudner, and McLoda 2013).
From a kinematic point of view, a strong relationship exists between the scapula tilt
and pectoralis minor length (Hébert et al. 2002; Ludewig, and Cook 2000). This is
because the origin of the pectoralis minor is the third, fourth, and fifth ribs and the
insertion is the coracoid process of the scapula. The pectoralis minor is thus elongated
during the scapular posterior tilting that occurs with arm elevation (McClure et al.
2001). The scapular posterior tilt angle was significantly increased after 6–weeks
stretching in the PMS group (6.42 ± 4.25). Our results suggest that PMS is a useful
intervention to improve the scapular posterior tilt angle. Our findings are consistent
with previous studies showing that the effect of pectoralis minor length on scapular
kinematics (Borstad, and Ludewig 2005; Roddey, Olson, and Grant 2002; Williams,
Laudner, and McLoda 2013).
As noted above, scapular movement is essential during humeral forward flexion.
The movement of scapular upward rotation, external rotation, and posterior tilt occurs
with humeral forward flexion (Ludewig, and Cook 2000; McClure et al. 2001).
McClure et al. (2001) reported a strong correlation between the scapular posterior tilt
- 24 -
angle and the humeral forward flexion range. Considering the mechanical relationship
between the pectoralis minor, scapular posterior tilt, and humeral forward flexion, the
range of humeral forward flexion is also affected by the pectoralis minor length. The
humeral forward flexion range observed in this study was significantly increased in
comparison with pre–stretching in the PMS group (10.36 ± 5.70). Our results are
consistent with previous studies showing a correlation between humeral forward
flexion and the pectoralis minor (Borstad, and Ludewig 2005; Wang et al. 1999). In
sum, the scapular posterior tilt angle increased as a result of PMS, and then the
humeral forward flexion range thereby increased. The current study suggests that
PMS is effective for improving upper limb function in stroke patients.
First, we formulated two hypotheses. One of the hypotheses already been proven.
The other hypothesis is that PMS plus SPTE would increase the scapular posterior tilt,
humeral forward flexion, and pectoralis minor length more than PMS alone. However,
the results of our study did not support that hypothesis. Even though the scapular
posterior tilt angle and humeral forward flexion increased more in the PMS plus
SPTE group (13.72 ± 12.82, 14.15 ± 9.62, respectively) than the PMS group (6.42 ±
4.25, 10.36 ± 5.70, respectively), the results of our study were not statistically
significant. The pectoralis minor length increased more in the PMS than the PMS plus
SPTE (0.95 ± 0.62, 0.90 ± 0.57, respectively), but this was also not statistically
significant.
Harris, and Eng (2010) concluded that strengthening exercises are effective for
improving upper limb strength and function in stroke patients by means of meta–
- 25 -
analysis. However, our results did not support their findings. This could be because
of the dependent variable. Previous researchers judged the effects by grip strength
(Bütefisch et al. 1995; Langhammer, Lindmark, and Stanghelle 2007; Pang, Harris,
and Eng 2006), upper limb strength (Bourbonnais et al. 2002), and upper limb
function (Gelber et al. 1995; Logigian et al. 1983; Platz et al. 2005). There was no
specific description about the pectoralis minor, scapular posterior tilt, and humeral
forward flexion. Even though the strengthening exercise in our study was effective,
it may not have had a strong influence on the three dependent variables. Another
possible reason is the intervention period. Previous studies reported that
strengthening exercise is effective for elderly stroke patients when they performed
such exercise for 12 weeks (Kim et al. 2012a; Studenski et al. 2005). The subjects of
our study were over 50 years old in both groups (63.4 ± 8.8, 55.1 ± 15.4,
respectively). Thus, 6 weeks may be too short for our subjects. Spasticity also may
affect the results. Spasticity is one of the most common conditions in strokes
(Esquenazi 2011) and significantly contributes to functional impairments and
limited activities of daily living (Hsu, Tang, and Jan 2003; Welmer et al. 2006).
Because of spasticity, it may be difficult to control the selective movement of the
shoulder. Lastly, our unique findings could also be due to the different position
used in the strengthening exercise. The general position used to strengthen
the lower trapezius is a prone position (Ballantyne et al. 1993;
Ekstrom, Donatelli, and Soderberg 2003). It is an effective position to
strengthen muscles using gravity as resistance (Kisner, and Colby 2002). In
- 26 -
this study, however, the exercise was not performed in a prone position
because of subjects were stroke patients; it would be dangerous for them to
breathe in this position. Alternatively, we performed SPTE in a sitting
position in accordance with a study done by Mottram (1997). However, this
may not be as effective to strengthen muscles as the prone position.
Moreover, we were unable to confirm the effects of the strengthening
exercise objectively because we did not measure the muscle power before
and after SPTE.
The present study has several limitations. First, the lower trapezius muscle activity
or strength after strengthening was not measured. In order to determine whether the
strengthening exercise was effective, we should have measured the pre– and post–
intervention muscle strength. Further research is needed to measure muscle strength
pre– and post–intervention. Second, the electromagnetic sensors used in our study
were attached on the skin to detect bone movement. The artifact arising from skin
movement may have had a considerable impact on our results. Finally, the 6–week
intervention period was not sufficient time for elderly stroke patients, considering
their physiological condition. Further research needs to be done using more than a 6–
week intervention to determine the effects of SPTE on the scapular posterior tilt,
humeral forward flexion and pectoralis minor length of stroke patients.
- 27 -
Conclusion
The present study compared the effects of a 6–week intervention with PMS or PMS
plus SPTE on the paretic scapular posterior tilt angle, humeral forward flexion range
during active humeral forward flexion, and pectoralis minor length in stroke patients.
The results indicate that PMS and PMS plus SPTE had significant effects in terms of
increasing the kinematics of the shoulder function. The reported increase on the
scapular posterior tilt angle and humeral forward flexion was greater in the PMS plus
SPTE group than in the PMS group; however, the difference between the groups was
not statistically significant. The pectoralis minor length was increased more in the
PMS than the PMS plus SPTE group. In conclusion, PMS is an effective intervention
for paretic upper limb function in stroke patients, and PMS plus SPTE is no more
effective than PMS alone.
- 28 -
References
Andrews JR, Harrelson GL, and Wilk KE. Physical Rehabilitation of the Injured Ath-
lete. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders, 2012.
Baek JH, Kim JW, Kim SY, Oh DW, and Yoo EY. Acute effect of repeated passive
motion exercise on shoulder position sense in patients with hemiplegia: A pilot
study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009;25(2):101–106.
Ballantyne BT, O'Hare SJ, Paschall JL, Pavia–Smith MM, Pitz AM, Gillon JF, and
Soderberg GL. Electromyographic activity of selected shoulder muscles in com-
monly used therapeutic exercises. Phys Ther. 1993;73(10):668–682.
Bandy WD, Irion JM, and Briggler M. The effect of time and frequency of static
stretching on flexibility of the hamstring muscles. Phys Ther. 1997;77(10):1090–
1096.
Bohannon RW, and Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of
muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206–207.
- 29 -
Borstad JD, and Ludewig PM. The effect of long versus short pectoralis minor resting
length on scapular kinematics in healthy individuals. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.
2005;35(4):227–238.
Borstad JD, and Ludewig PM. Comparison of three stretches for the pectoralis minor
muscle. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(3):324–330.
Bourbonnais D, Bilodeau S, Lepage Y, Beaudoin N, Gravel D, and Forget R. Effect
of force–feedback treatments in patients with chronic motor deficits after a stroke.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(12):890–897.
Boyd EA, and Torrance GM. Clinical measures of shoulder subluxation: Their relia-
bility. Can J Public Health. 1992;83:24–28.
Bütefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, and Mauritz KH. Repetitive training of
isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally
paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995;130(1):59–68.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
- 30 -
Culham EG, Noce RR, and Bagg SD. Shoulder complex position and glenohumeral
subluxation in hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76(9):857–864.
Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Richards C, Bourbonnais D, Rochette A, and Bravo G.
Comparison of changes in upper and lower extremity impairments and disabilities
after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26(2):109–116.
Ekstrom RA, Donatelli RA, and Soderberg GL. Surface electromyographic analysis
of exercises for the trapezius and serratus anterior muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther. 2003;33(5):247–258.
Esquenazi A. The human and economic burden of poststroke spasticity and muscle
overactivity. J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2011;18(1):34–44.
Gelber DA, Josefczyk PB, Herrman D, Godd DC, and Verhulst SJ. Comparison of
two therapy approaches in the rehabilitation of the pure motor hemiparetic stroke
patient. J Neuro Rehabil. 1995;9(4):191–196.
Glousman R, Jobe F, Tibone J, Moynes D, Antonelli D, and Perry J. Dynamic elec-
tromyographic analysis of the throwing shoulder with glenohumeral instability. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(2):220–226.
- 31 -
Gracies JM. Pathophysiology of impairment in patients with spasticity and use of
stretch as a treatment of spastic hypertonia. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am.
2001;12(4):747–768.
Graichen H, Bonel H, Stammberger T, Haubner M, Rohrer H, Englmeier KH, Reiser
M, and Eckstein F. Three–dimensional analysis of the width of the subacromial
space in healthy subjects and patients with impingement syndrome. AJR Am J
Roentgenol. 1999;172(4):1081–1086.
Harris JE, and Eng JJ. Strength training improves upper–limb function in individuals
with stroke: A meta–analysis. Stroke. 2010;41(1):136–140.
Hébert LJ, Moffet H, McFadyen BJ, and Dionne CE. Scapular behavior in shoulder
impingement syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(1):60–69.
Hsu AL, Tang PF, and Jan MH. Analysis of impairments influencing gait velocity
and asymmetry of hemiplegic patients after mild to moderate stroke. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil. 2003;84(8):1185–1193.
Jo HM, Song JC, and Jang SH. Improvements in spasticity and motor function using a
static stretching device for people with chronic hemiparesis following stroke. Neu-
roRehabilitation. 2013;32(2):369–375.
- 32 -
Johnson G, Bogduk N, Nowitzke A, and House D. Anatomy and actions of the trape-
zius muscle. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1994;9(1):44–50.
Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG, Roders MM, and Romani WA. Muscles:
Testing and Function With Posture and Pain. 5th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Wil-
liams & Wilkins, 2005.
Kibler WB. The role of the scapula in athletic shoulder function. Am J Sports Med.
1998;26(2):325–337.
Kibler WB. Scapular involvement in impingement: Signs and symptoms. Instr
Course Lect. 2006;55:35–43.
Kibler WB, and McMullen J. Scapular dyskinesis and its relation to shoulder pain. J
Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(2):142–151.
Kim GY, Kwon BE, Hur HK, Roh YS, and Shin MJ. Effects of a muscle strengthen-
ing exercise program on muscle strength, activities of daily living, health percep-
tion, and depression in post–stroke elders. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2012a;24(3):317–
326.
- 33 -
Kim JH, Park SG, Lim HJ, Park GC, Kim MH, and Lee BH. Effects of the combina-
tion of rhythmic auditory stimulation and task–oriented training on functional re-
covery of subacute stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci. 2012b;24(12):1307–1313.
Kisner C, and Colby LA. Therapeutic Exercise: Foundation and Techniques. 4th ed.
Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Co., 2002.
Langhammer B, Lindmark B, and Stanghelle JK. Stroke patients and long–term train-
ing: Is it worthwhile? A randomized comparison of two different training strategies
after rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(6):495–510.
Lewis JS, and Valentine RE. The pectoralis minor length test: a study of the intra–
rater reliability and diagnostic accuracy in subjects with and without shoulder
symptoms. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:64.
Logigian MK, Samuels MA, Falconer J, and Zagar R. Clinical exercise trial for stroke
patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983;64(8):364–367.
Ludewig PM, and Cook TM. Alterations in shoulder kinematics and associated mus-
cle activity in people with symptoms of shoulder impingement. Phys Ther.
2000;80(3):276–291.
- 34 -
Ludewig PM, Cook TM, and Nawoczenski DA. Three–dimensional scapular orien-
tation and muscle activity at selected positions of humeral elevation. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther. 1996;24(2):57–65.
McClure P, Greenberg E, and Kareha S. Evaluation and management of scapular dys-
function. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2012;20(1):39–48.
McClure PW, Michener LA, Sennett BJ, and Karduna AR. Direct 3–dimensional
measurement of scapular kinematics during dynamic movements in vivo. J Shoul-
der Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):269–277.
Messier S, Bourbonnais D, Desrosiers J, and Roy Y. Kinematic analysis of upper
limbs and trunk movement during bilateral movement after stroke. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 2006;87(11):1463–1470.
Meyer KE, Saether EE, Soiney EK, Shebeck MS, Paddock KL, and Ludewig PM.
Three–dimensional scapular kinematics during the throwing motion. J Appl Bio-
mech. 2008;24(1):24–34.
Mngoma NF, Culham EG, and Bagg SD. Resistance to passive shoulder external
rotation in persons with hemiplegia: Evaluation of an assessment system. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(5):531–535.
- 35 -
Mottram SL. Dynamic stability of the scapula. Man Ther. 1997;2(3):123–131.
Muraki T, Aoki M, Izumi T, Fujii M, Hidake E, and Miyamoto S. Lengthening of the
pectoralis minor muscle during passive shoulder motions and stretching tech-
niques: A cadaveric biomechanical study. Phys Ther. 2009;89(4):333–341.
Nielsen JB, Crone C, and Hultborn H. The spinal pathophysiology of spasticity–from
a basic science point of view. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2007;189(2):171–180.
Page P, Frank CC, and Lardner R. Assessment and Treatment of Muscle Imbalance:
The Janda Approach. IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.
Pang MY, Harris JE, and Eng JJ. A community–based upper–extremity group exer-
cise program improves motor function and performance of functional activities in
chronic stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2006;87(1):1–9.
Park JH, and Kwon YC. Standardization of Korean version of the mini–mental state
examination (MMSE–K) for use in the elderly. Part II: Diagnostic validity. J Kore-
an Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 1989;28(3):508–513.
- 36 -
Peurala SH, Könönen P, Pitkänen K, Sivenius J, and Tarkka IM. Postural instability
in patients with chronic stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;25(2):101–108.
Platz T, Eickhof C, van Kaick S, Engel U, Pinkowski C, Kalok S, and Pause M. Im-
pairment–oriented training or Bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke: A
single–blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil.
2005;19(7):714–724.
Polhemus. Polhemus Liberty Brochure. [Internet]. Colchester, 2012 Mar. Available
from: http://polhemus.com/_assets/img/LIBERTY_Brochure.pdf.
Price CI, Rodgers H, Franklin P, Curless RH, and Johnson GR. Glenohumeral sub-
luxation, scapula resting position, and scapula rotation after stroke: A noninvasive
evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(7):955–960.
Reinold MM, Escamilla RF, and Wilk KE. Current concepts in the scientific and
clinical rationale behind exercises for glenohumeral and scapulothoracic muscula-
ture. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(2):105–117.
Richardson CA, and Jull GA. Muscle control–pain control. What exercises would you
prescribe? Man Ther. 1995;1(1):2–10.
- 37 -
Roddey TS, Olson SL, and Grant SE. The effect of pectoralis muscle stretching on the
resting position of the scapula in persons with varying degrees of forward
head/rounded shoulder posture. J Man Manip Ther. 2002;10(3):124–128.
Roren A, Fayad F, Roby–Brami A, Revel M, Fermanian J, Poiraudeau S, Robertson
J, and Lefevre–Colau MM. Precision of 3D scapular kinematic measurements for
analytic arm movements and activities of daily living. Man Ther. 2013;18(6):473–
480.
Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and Treatment of Movement Impairment Syndromes. St
Louis, MO: Mosby Inc, 2002.
Stokes M. Physical Management of Neurological Rehabilitation. 2nd ed. London:
Elsevier Mosby, 2004.
Studenski S, Duncan PW, Perera S, Reker D, Lai SM, and Richards L. Daily func-
tioning and quality of life in a randomized controlled trial of therapeutic exercise
for subacute stroke survivors. Stroke. 2005;36(8):1764–1770.
- 38 -
Taylor DC, Dalton JD Jr, Seaber AV, and Garrett WE Jr. Viscoelastic properties of
muscle–tendon units. The biomechanical effects of stretching. Am J Sports Med.
1990;18(3):300–309.
Wang CH, McClure P, Pratt NE, and Nobilini R. Stretching and strengthening exer-
cises: Their effect on three–dimensional scapular kinematics. Arch Phys Med Re-
habil. 1999;80(8):923–929.
Welmer AK, von Arbin M, Widén Holmqvist L, and Sommerfeld DK. Spasticity and
its association with functioning and health–related quality of life 18 months after
stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis.2006;21(4):247–253.
Wilkinson A. Stretching the truth. A review of the literature on muscle stretching.
Aust J Physiother. 1992;38(4):283–287.
Williams JG, Laudner KG, and McLoda T. The acute effects of two passive stretch
maneuvers on pectoralis minor length and scapular kinematics among collegiate
swimmers. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013;8(1):25–33.
- 39 -
국문 요약
뇌졸중 환자에게 견갑골 후방 경사 운동과 소흉근
신장운동을 병행 시 어깨 운동형상학에 미치는 효과
연세대학교 대학원
물리치료학과
박 일 우
본 연구의 목적은 뇌졸중 환자에게 적용한 견갑골 후방 경사 운동과
소흉근 신장운동이 견갑골 후방 경사 각도, 상완골 전방 굴곡 범위,
소흉근 길이에 미치는 영향을 비교하는 것이다. 본 연구를 위해 병원에
입원 중인 뇌졸중 환자 20명(남자 13명, 여자 7명)이 대상자로
참여하였다. 대상자들은 10명씩 두 집단으로 나뉘어 6주간, 한 집단은
소흉근 신장 운동을, 다른 한 집단은 소흉근 신장 운동과 견갑골 후방
경사 운동을 병행하였다. 3차원 전자기식 동작 측정 시스템을 이용하여
6주간의 치료적 중재 전후 각각 한 번씩, 앉은 상태에서 팔을 앞으로 들어
올리는 동안의 견갑골 후방 경사 각도와 상완골 전방 굴곡 범위를
- 40 -
측정하였고, 바로 누운 상태에서 대상자의 마비 측 견봉과 매트 사이의
직선 거리를 측정하여 소흉근 길이 변화를 측정하였다. 통계학적
유의수준은 α = 0.05로 하여 치료적 중재 전후의 집단 내 비교를 위해
짝비교 t–검정을, 집단 간 비교를 위해 독립적 t–검정을 실시하였다. 연구
결과 두 집단 내에서 모두 견갑골 후방 경사 각도와 상완골 전방 굴곡
범위가 유의하게 증가하였고, 소흉근도 유의하게 신장되었다. 두 집단 간
비교 시 신장 된 소흉근 길이 변화량은 두 집단간에 유의하지 않았다.
또한 두 집단 간 견갑골 후방 경사 각도와 상완골 전방 굴곡 범위를
비교하였을 때도, 통계학적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다. 따라서 뇌졸중
환자의 마비 측 상지 기능 개선을 위해서 소흉근 신장 운동은 효과적인
중재 방법이라고 할 수 있지만 견갑골 후방 경사운동과 소흉근 신장운동을
병행하였다고 해서 소흉근 신장운동만 시킨 것보다 상지 기능개선에 더
효과적이라고 할 수는 없겠다. 그러나 추후에 사례 수를 더 늘려서 연구해
볼 필요가 있겠다.
핵심 되는 말: 견갑골 후방 경사 운동, 뇌졸중, 소흉근 신장 운동, 어깨
운동형상학.