Strength deficits of the shoulder complex during isokinetic testing in people with chronic stroke
Lucas R. Nascimento 1 2 , Luci F. Teixeira-Salmela 2 , Janaine C. Polese 1 2 , Louise Ada 1 , Christina D. C. M. Faria 2 , Glória E. C. Laurentino 3
1Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney (NSW), Australia
2Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
3Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, PE, Brazil
OBJECTIVES:
To examine the strength deficits of the shoulder complex after stroke and to characterize the pattern of weakness according to type of movement and type of isokinetic parameter.
METHOD:
Twelve chronic stroke survivors and 12 age-matched healthy controls had their shoulder strength measured using a Biodex isokinetic dynamometer. Concentric measures of peak torque and work during shoulder movements were obtained in random order at speeds of 60°/s for both groups and sides. Type of movement was defined as scapulothoracic (protraction and retraction), glenohumeral (shoulder internal and external rotation) or combined (shoulder flexion and extension). Type of isokinetic parameter was defined as maximum (peak torque) or sustained (work). Strength deficits were calculated using the control group as reference.
RESULTS:
The average strength deficit for the paretic upper limb was 52% for peak torque and 56% for work. Decreases observed in the non-paretic shoulder were 21% and 22%, respectively. Strength deficit of the scapulothoracic muscles was similar to the glenohumeral muscles, with a mean difference of 6% (95% CI -5 to 17). Ability to sustain torque throughout a given range of motion was decreased as much as the peak torque, with a mean difference of 4% (95% CI -2 to 10).
CONCLUSIONS:
The findings suggest that people after stroke might benefit from strengthening exercises directed at the paretic scapulothoracic muscles in addition to exercises of arm elevation. Clinicians should also prescribe different exercises to improve the ability to generate force and the ability to sustain the torque during a specific range of motion.
Key words: cerebrovascular disease; hemiparesis; shoulder complex; muscle strength; physical therapy
INTRODUCTION
Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and has a significant impact on physical, emotional, and social lives1 , 2. It has been suggested that rehabilitation strategies designed to improve activity after stroke should be based upon understanding of the nature of the main impairments, as well as knowledge of their relative contributions to disabilities3. Studies aimed at increasing our understanding of the nature of upper limb impairments are necessary to underpin rehabilitation, considering that the upper limb is required for most activities of daily living1. In particular, shoulder movements are necessary to carry out activities like feeding, combing hair, and reaching overhead, thus a compromised shoulder complex could lead to limitations in several activities3 , 4. Previous studies indicated that muscular weakness is the most common impairment following stroke and has been shown to be significantly related to limitations during these upper limb activities1 , 5 , 6.
The shoulder complex exhibits the greatest amount of movement in the human body. This mobility is the result of the combined and constrained motions of two main joints, the glenohumeral and scapulothoracic7 , 8. Weakness in the scapulothoracic or the glenohumeral muscles may cause imbalances in the force couples around the shoulder complex, leading to abnormal kinematics9 , 10. Since these muscles are constrained to act as a single unit, any abnormality in one muscle may result in instability which, in turn, may decrease movement during upper limb activities11 , 12.
Previous studies13 , 14 on shoulder muscle weakness have measured isometric strength, which does not reflect the dynamic nature of the upper limb movements and is limited to one aspect of muscle strength (i.e. peak torque). Although peak torque is an excellent indicator of maximum strength, it does not take into account the ability to sustain a produced torque throughout a given range of motion (i.e. work)15. The ability to generate large muscle forces is of little functional benefit if the force cannot be sustained during the time required to perform an activity. Incomplete range of motion during activities of daily living is clinically evident in people after stroke and may be related to inability to sustain a produced torque.
Although previous studies have provided evidence that shoulder muscles are generally weak after stroke13 , 14and that both peak torque and work are decreased during the abduction of the upper limb3, there is still no specific information regarding glenohumeral muscle weakness compared with scapulothoracic muscle weakness. Despite the fact that neurological rehabilitation has changed considerably over the past decades, strength training of the shoulder muscles is still uncommon, particularly strengthening of the scapulothoracic muscles. This information could help clinical practice since it has been suggested that strong scapulothoracic muscles are necessary to achieve adequate range of motion during arm elevation11.
Therefore, to understand the nature of the strength deficit of the shoulder muscles in people with stroke, this study aimed to investigate dynamic strength deficits according to type of movement and type of isokinetic parameter. Type of movement was defined as: scapulothoracic (protraction and retraction which predominantly involves movement of the scapula on the chest wall), glenohumeral (internal and external shoulder rotation which predominantly involves movement at the glenohumeral joint) or combined (shoulder flexion and extension which involves movement of the scapula and the glenohumeral joint). Type of isokinetic parameter was analyzed as: maximum strength (peak torque) or work (ability to produce and sustain torque throughout a given range of motion). The specific research questions were:
- Is the strength deficit during scapulothoracic movement less affected than during glenohumeral movement in people with stroke?
- Is the ability to sustain torque throughout a given range of motion less affected than maximum strength?
The findings will provide information regarding the nature of weakness following stroke. Examining different parameters of strength of stable chronic individuals after stroke will help guide clinical practice by suggesting specific muscles and strength parameters to be targered with strengthening interventions during rehabilitation of both acute and chronic patients.
METHOD
Participants
Twelve chronic stroke survivors and 12 healthy controls were recruited from the general community of the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Participants with stroke were included if they: were >20 years old; had a time since the onset of unilateral stroke greater than six months; had no pain or contractures of the upper limb joints which could prevent the test procedures; had no cognitive deficits (scores>24 out of 30 on the Mini-mental state examination)16; had mild or moderate upper limb motor impairments (scores between 30-65 out of 66 on the Fugl-Meyer - upper limb scale)17; had mild or moderate increases in muscle tone of the elbow flexors (scores <3 out of 4 on the Modified Ashworth Scale)18; and had no other neurological or orthopedic disorders. Healthy participants matched by age, gender, and upper limb dominance were included if they had no cognitive deficits. This study was approved by the University's Ethical Review Board, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais(UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil (ETIC 0539.0.203.000-09), and all the participants signed the consent forms.
Procedures
The participants attended the university laboratory on one occasion, for about 90 minutes. First, both groups provided consent prior to data collection and background information regarding their age, gender, body mass, height, cognition, and grip strength. Grip strength was measured using a Jamar dynamometer19, and the average value after three repetitions was recorded. The time since the onset of stroke, the paretic side, motor impairments, muscle tone, and amount and quality of use of the paretic upper limb using the Motor Activity Log20 were also collected for the stroke group for descriptive purposes.
Then, peak torque and work were obtained during the movements of scapular protraction and retraction; external and internal shoulder rotation; and shoulder flexion and extension. The order of testing of the movements was randomized. After a brief explanation, participants executed three sub-maximal familiarization trials, followed by five maximal concentric-concentric trials for each evaluated movement. The non-paretic side of the stroke and the dominant side of the control participants were tested first. During the tests, blood pressure and heart rate were constantly monitored, and standardized procedures were employed by having the same physical therapist collecting all of the data.
Measurement of strength of the shoulder complex
Strength of the shoulder complex was measured as peak torque and work obtained with the Biodex isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex Medical System 3 Pro, Shirley, NY, USA) at a speed of 60°/s. The dynamometer was calibrated following the manufacturer's recommendations and the axis of the dynamometer was aligned with that of each specific joint21 , 22, and the six movements were evaluated9 , 23 , 24. Modifications of the testing positions and ranges of motion were performed to minimize possible compensatory movements25. Gravity corrections were employed during the tested movements, except for the scapular protraction and retraction movements, since these movements are performed in the horizontal plane9.
For the scapular protraction and retraction movements, the closed chain attachment was fixed to the dynamometer in the horizontal position. The dynamometer shaft was rotated 30º, and the participants were seated with their arms in the scapular plane9 , 26. The elbow was kept extended by a stabilizing device and the trunk was stabilized by two crossed straps. Movement was performed at 12.2 cm/s from 20º of protraction to 10º of scapular retraction.
For the external and internal shoulder rotation movements, the participants were positioned in supine position to reduce the scapulothoracic movements, with 90º of shoulder abduction and elbow flexion. The rotation axis of the dynamometer was aligned to the shoulder joint according to Moraes et al.22, and movement was performed within an arc of 90º, between 40º of external rotation and 50º of internal rotation22. This range of motion was chosen to prevent passive restriction of the rotator cuff and the possible concurrent onset of pain24.
For the shoulder flexion and extension movements, the participants were seated with the elbow in extension and movement was performed within an arc of 90°, between 20º of shoulder extension and 70º of flexion. The rotation axis of the dynamometer was aligned to the shoulder joint according to Kim et al.23.
Data reduction
Strength was measured both as peak torque and work. Peak torque is the product of mass, acceleration, and the lever arm length15. Although peak torque is an excellent indicator of maximum strength, it does not take into account the range of motion. For this reason, work was also calculated to indicate the ability to produce and sustain torque throughout a given range of motion15. Peak torque was the maximum torque produced during five trials, and the total work was the cumulative amount of work produced by the participants during several trials. Both peak torque (Nm/s) and work (J) were normalized by body mass.
Strength deficits were calculated using the control group as a reference, according to Alon27, as follows: Deficit = 100 - (stroke/control * 100). Therefore, the pattern of strength could be examined across three different experimental conditions regarding the type of movement: predominantly scapulothoracic (protraction and retraction), predominantly glenohumeral (internal and external shoulder rotations), and combined glenohumeral and scapulothoracic movements (shoulder flexion and extension); and between two experimental conditions regarding the type of isokinetic parameter: maximum strength and work.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics, tests for normality (Shapiro-Wilk), and homogeneity of variance (Levene) were carried out for all outcome variables, using the SPSS for Windows software (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Multifactorial repeated measures ANOVA were employed to investigate differences in the strength deficits across the three experimental conditions related to type of movement (predominantly scapulothoracic, predominantly glenohumeral, and combined glenohumeral and scapulothoracic movements). Paired t-tests were employed to compare differences between the two types of isokinetic parameters (peak torque and work). Significance level was set at α=0.05. Mean differences were calculated and were provided with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS
Participants
As shown in Table 1, the stroke group was comprised of 12 individuals (six men) with a mean age of 52 years (SD 11, range 32 to 67 years), and a mean time since the onset of stroke of 10 years (SD 4.9). The control group was comprised of 12 volunteers with a mean age of 52 years (SD 12, range 30 to 66 years), matched by age, gender and hand dominance.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
| Characteristic | Stroke | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 52.0 (10.5) | 51.8 (11.8) |
| Gender, n male (%) | 6 (50) | 6 (50) |
| Body mass | 73.7 (10.4) | 69.8 (13.7) |
| Height | 1.65 (0.1) | 1.68 (0.1) |
| Cognition | 27.5 (2.0) | 28.8 (1.7) |
| Grip strength – paretic | 14.9 (10.4) | 35.5 (9.5) |
| Grip strength – non-paretic | 33.0 (9.3) | 37.6 (9.7) |
| Time since stroke | 10.0 (4.9) | NA |
| Side of hemiparesis, n right (%) | 7 (58) | NA |
| Motor impairments | 47 (10) | NA |
| Muscle tone | ||
| 0 | 3 (25) | NA |
| 1 | 3 (25) | NA |
| 1+ | 1 (8) | NA |
| 2 | 2 (17) | NA |
| 3 | 3 (25) | NA |
| Amount of UL use | 3.4 (1.5) | NA |
| Quality of UL use | 3.4 (1.6) | NA |
=Mini-mental state examination
UL
=upper limb
MAL
=Motor Activity Log
NA
=not applicable
Table 2 provides the magnitude of strength for both groups and sides, and the strength deficit for each evaluated movement. The average deficit in peak torque was 52% (ranging from 41 to 57%) for the paretic upper limb and 21% (ranging from 13 to 34%) for the non-paretic upper limb. The average deficit in work measures was 56% (ranging from 48 to 62%) for the paretic upper limb and 22% (ranging from 13 to 29%) for the non-paretic upper limb.
Table 2. Mean (SD) peak torque (Nm/s) and work (J) for each side of each group and mean (SD) strength deficit for each side of stroke group as a % of control group.
| Strength | Strength deficit* | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stroke | Control | Stroke | ||||||
| Paretic | Non-paretic | Dominant | Non-dominant | Paretic | Non-paretic | |||
| Peak torque | ||||||||
| Shoulder internal rotation | 18 (7) | 31 (7) | 42 (12) | 42 (11) | 52 (20) | 22 (19) | ||
| Shoulder external rotation | 18 (7) | 31 (5) | 36 (7) | 37 (8) | 46 (25) | 13 (18) | ||
| Shoulder flexion | 43 (14) | 64 (27) | 8 (29) | 84 (36) | 41 (26) | 18 (30) | ||
| Shoulder extension | 30 (11) | 57 (18) | 69 (15) | 72 (15) | 55 (18) | 18 (22) | ||
| Scapular protraction | 172 (71) | 312 (95) | 435 (114) | 444 (112) | 57 (20) | 25 (29) | ||
| Scapular retraction | 214 (75) | 335 (99) | 509 (116) | 522 (126) | 55 (20) | 34 (13) | ||
| Work | ||||||||
| Shoulder internal rotation | 21 (10) | 38 (11) | 52 (17) | 53 (17) | 57 (23) | 26 (18) | ||
| Shoulder external rotation | 21 (10) | 39 (10) | 46 (10) | 46 (10) | 50 (30) | 13 (20) | ||
| Shoulder flexion | 41 (14) | 69 (25) | 94 (37) | 92 (36) | 48 (28) | 22 (27) | ||
| Shoulder extension | 29 (14) | 61 (21) | 80 (20) | 80 (22) | 62 (20) | 22 (24) | ||
| Scapular protraction | 63 (21) | 144 (32) | 187 (55) | 182 (50) | 61 (18) | 22 (8) | ||
| Scapular retraction | 82 (29) | 152 (33) | 219 (49) | 215 (45) | 59 (15) | 29 (12) | ||
Strength deficit = 100 - (stroke/control x 100).
Pattern of strength deficit according to type of movement
Table 3 provides the strength deficit of the paretic upper limb and the mean difference between the types of movement. There were no significant differences in strength deficits between the three different types of movement regarding peak torque (F=2.96, p=0.08) and work (F=1.45, p=0.26). The average mean difference between scapulothoracic deficit and the glenohumeral deficit was 6% (95%CI -5 to 17), and the average mean difference between scapulothoracic deficit and the combined deficit was 6% (95%CI -6 to 18).
Table 3. Mean (SD) strength deficit* of stroke group as a % of control group for each type of movement and mean differences (95%CI) between types of movement.
| Isokinetic parameter | Type of movement | Difference between types of movement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scapulothoracic | Glenohumeral | Combined | Scapulothoracic minus glenohumeral | Scapulothoracic minus combined | Glenohumeral minus combined | |
| Peak torque | 56 (20) | 50 (18) | 50 (19) | 6 (-4 to 16) | 6 (-1 to 13) | 0 (-9 to 9) |
| Work | 60 (16) | 53 (26) | 55 (22) | 6 (-7 to 20) | 5 (-6 to 16) | -1 (-11 to 9) |
Strength deficit = 100 - (stroke/control x 100).
Pattern of strength deficit according to type of isokinetic parameter
Table 4 provides the strength deficit of the paretic upper limb and the mean difference between the types of isokinetic parameter. There were no significant differences in strength deficits between the two different of types isokinetic parameter during the scapulothoracic movements (t=1.35, p=0.20) and the glenohumeral movements (t=0.83, p=0.42). A significant difference in strength deficit between the two different types of isokinetic parameter was found during the combined movement (t=2.8, p=0.02), with a mean difference of 5% (95% CI 1 to 9). Overall, there was no significant difference between types of isokinetic parameter, with an average mean difference between peak torque deficit and work deficit of 4% (95% CI -2 to 10) for the paretic upper limb.
Table 4. Mean (SD) strength deficit of stroke group* as a % of control group and mean differences (95%CI) between types of isokinetic parameters.
| Type of movement | Type of isokinetic parameter | Difference between types of isokinetic parameter | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work | Peak torque | Work minus peak torque | |
| Scapulothoracic | 60 (16) | 56 (20) | 4 (-3 to 11) |
| Glenohumeral | 53 (26) | 50 (18) | 3 (-6 to 12) |
| Combined | 55 (22) | 50 (19) | 5 (1 to 9) |
Strength deficit = 100 - (stroke/control x 100).
DISCUSSION
This is the first study to measure dynamic strength of the shoulder complex in people with stroke during different movements. Strength deficits in peak torque and work during six movements of the shoulder complex were calculated, so that the pattern of weakness could be examined according to type of movement and type of isokinetic parameter. In terms of the type of movement, the results indicate that the strength deficit in the scapulothoracic muscles is the same as the strength deficit in the glenohumeral muscles in people with chronic stroke. In addition, in terms of the type of isokinetic parameter, the results indicate that the deficit in the ability to sustain a contraction throughout a given range of motion is the same as the deficit in the ability to produce maximal force.
During arm elevation, glenohumeral and scapulothoracic motion occurs synchronously in about a 2:1 overall ratio, with glenohumeral motion occurring alone during the first 30º of elevation8 , 11. Strength deficits in scapulothoracic movement (protraction and retraction) were similar to deficits in glenohumeral movement (internal and external shoulder rotations). This suggested that deficits in strength of scapulothoracic and glenohumeral muscles might be equally important in terms of explaning the inability to elevate the upper limb following stroke.
The ability to sustain a contraction was as decreased as the ability to produce maximal force during both scapulothoracic and glenohumeral movements, which suggests that even if upper limb movements are initiated, the inability to sustain torque may compromise the execution of movements after stroke. Thus, people after stroke may get into a vicious cycle, in which weakness limits arm elevation and subsequent inactivity increases this weakness. Although a significant difference between types of isokinetic parameter was found during the combined movement, the mean difference was only 5% which does not appear to be clinically important. Considering that both types of isokinetic parameter are largely decreased in comparison with the control group, it is recommended that strengthening interventions directed at the shoulder complex focus on both parameters: maximum strength and work.
While weakness of the shoulder muscles has been previously reported using isometric measurements13 , 14, examination of dynamic strength of scapulothoracic movements has not been investigated. The scapula plays a critical role in controlling the position of the glenoid fossa and maintaining optimal length-tension relationships during upper limb elevation26. Therefore, relatively small changes in strength of the scapulothoracic muscles may affect its alignment and compromise upper limb movements7 , 28 , 29. Cools et al.9 reported significant weakness of protraction strength in athletes with impingement symptoms and difficullty with overhead movement. This supports the hypothesis that scapulothoracic muscle weakness may be related to shoulder disabilities.
The paretic side was weaker than the non-paretic side in the stroke group regardless the type of movement and type of isokinetic parameter. These results are in accordance with previous studies that measured muscle strength in both paretic and non-paretic sides after stroke14 , 30 , 31. In the present study, strength deficits of the non-paretic side were less than half than those of the paretic side. Although a decrease in force production has been described in the non-paretic side, deficits were obviously not large enough to be clinically relevant, since even severely disabled stroke subjects do not complain about weakness on their non-paretic side. The results of this study are in accordance with Avila et al.3, who described a significant decrease in peak torque and work in the paretic upper limb during shoulder abduction and a non-significant decrease in the non-paretic upper limb of individuals with stroke compared with a control group.
A limitation of this study was the narrow range of motion used to measure protraction and retraction movements. However, this was done to minimize possible compensatory trunk movements and recruitment of stronger muscles. Althought the mean time frame post-stroke varied, it reflects the characteristics of the stroke population found in the community, and potential confounding factors were minimized by matching with healthy subjects. However, future studies with a wider range of severity of impairments are necessary to enhance the generalizability of these findings for the whole stroke population. Since the present results reflected the concentric muscular performance of people with mild-to-moderate upper limb impairments, caution should be taken to extrapolate the results to individuals with severe chronic stroke.
There are important clinical implications related to the findings that the strength deficits of the scapulothoracic muscles were the same as the deficits of the glenohumeral muscles and that the inability to sustain a contraction throughout a given range of motion was the same as the inability to produce a maximal force. These findings suggest that people with stroke might benefit from strengthening exercises specifically directed at the scapulothoracic muscles (i.e. protraction and retraction) and the glenohumeral muscles (i.e. external and internal rotation) in the early stages, so that both muscle groups are strengthened. Then, arm elevation exercises that combine both sets of muscle groups can be initiated and may be more successful since arm elevation relies on a combination of scapulothoracic and glenohumeral movements. Furthermore, strengthening exercises should include both fast and sustained contractions.
Since the muscles around the shoulder complex act in synergy, restitution of the appropriate balance between scapulothoracic and glenohumeral muscles might increase their synergic actions, thereby improving the ability to perform activities of daily living7 , 22. Therefore, activities that require arm elevation could be combined with strength training to allow the targered muscles in the rehabilitation program to improve the scapulohumeral rhythm and guarantee appropriate range of motion in daily activities32 , 33.
CONCLUSIONS
The present results indicate that people with stroke who have mild to moderate upper limb impairments demonstrate clinically significant weakness of the paretic shoulder and suggest a non-significant weakness of the non-paretic upper limb compared to healthy controls. There were no distinct patterns of strength deficits in terms of type of movement, with equal deficits in movements which were predominantly scapulothoracic and glenohumeral. These findings suggest that people with stroke might benefit from strengthening exercises directed at both the scapulothoracic and the glenohumeral muscles. Similarly, there were no distinct patterns of strength deficits in terms of type of isokinetic parameters, with equal deficits regarding maximal strength and the ability to sustain a contraction throughout a given range of motion. These findings suggest that clinicians should prescribe strengthening exercises to increase the ability to generate force and to sustain the torque during a specific movement or range of motion. Randomized trials are necessary to verify the efficacy of strengthening both at the scapular and glenohumeral muscles during early rehabilitation in improving upper limb activities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Brazilian Funding Agencies: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brasilia, DF and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Belo Horizonte, MG.
REFERENCES
1. Harris JE, Eng JJ. Paretic upper-limb strength best explains arm activity in people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2007;87:88-97. PMid:17179441. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20060065 [ Links ]
2. Murtezani A, Hundozi H, Gashi S, Osmani T, Krasniqi V, Rama B. Factors associated with reintegration to normal living after stroke. Med Arh. 2009;63:216-9. PMid:20088178. [ Links ]
3. Avila MA, Romaguera F, Oliveira AB, Camargo PR, Salvini TF. Bilateral impairments of shoulder abduction in chronic hemiparesis: Electromyographic patterns and isokinetic muscle performance. J Electr Kinesiol. 2013;23:712-20. PMid:23369876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.12.001 [ Links ]
4. Rundquist PJ, Obrecht C, Woodruff L. Three-dimensional shoulder kinematics to complete activities of daily living. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88:623-9. PMid:19620827.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181ae0733 [ Links ]
5. Canning CG, Ada L, Adams R, O'Dwyer NJ. Loss of strength contributes more to physical disability after stroke than loss of dexterity. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:300-8. PMid:15137561.http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr715oa [ Links ]
6. Ada L, Dorsch S, Canning CG. Strengthening interventions increase strength and improve activity after stroke: A systematic review. Aust J Physiother. 2006;52:241-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(06)70003-4 [ Links ]
7. Faria CD, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Gomes PF. Applicability of the coactivation method in assessing synergies of the scapular stabilizing muscles. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:764-72. PMid:19447048.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.019 [ Links ]
8. Sharkey NA, Marder RA, Hanson PB. The entire rotator cuff contributes to elevation of the arm. J Orthop Res. 1994;12:699-708. PMid:7931787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100120513 [ Links ]
9. Cools AM, Witvrouw EE, Declercq GA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC. Evaluation of isokinetic force production and associated muscle activity in the scapular rotators during a protraction-retraction movement in overhead athletes with impingement symptoms. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:64-8. PMid:14751949 PMCid:PMC1724756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2003.004952 [ Links ]
10. Nascimento LR, Bittencourt NFN, Resende RA, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Fonseca ST. Biomecânica aplicada ao voleibol: Análise do complexo do ombro e implicações para avaliação e desempenho. Ter Man. 2010;8:376-83. [ Links ]
11. Gomes PF, Sesselmann M, Faria CD, Araujo PA, Teixeira-Salmela LF. Measurement of scapular kinematics with the Moire fringe projection technique. J Biomech. 2010;43:1215-9. PMid:20097346.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.015 [ Links ]
12. Voight ML, Thomson BC. The role of the scapula in the rehabilitation of shoulder injuries. J Athl Train. 2000;35:364-72. PMid:16558649 PMCid:PMC1323398. [ Links ]
13. Mercier C, Bertrand AM, Bourbonnais D. Comparison of strength measurements under single-joint and multi-joint conditions in hemiparetic individuals. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:523-30. PMid:16119408.http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0269215505cr861oa [ Links ]
14. Mercier C, Bourbonnais D. Relative shoulder flexor and handgrip strength is related to upper limb function after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:215-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr724oa [ Links ]
15. Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I: Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J E P. 2001;4:1-21. [ Links ]
16. Brucki SMD, Nitrini R, Caramelli P, Bertolucci PHF, Okamoto IH. Suggestions for utilization of the mini-mental state examination in Brazil. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2003;61:777-81. PMid:14595482.http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2003000500014 [ Links ]
17. Maki T, Quagliato EMAB, Cacho EVA, Paz LPS, Nascimento NH, Inoue MMEA, et al. Reliability study on the application of the Fugl-Meyer scale in Brazil. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2006;10:177-83.http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552006000200007 [ Links ]
18. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Inter-rater reliability of a Modified Ashworth scale muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206-207. PMid:3809245. [ Links ]
19. Figueiredo IM, Sampaio RF, Mancini MC, Silva FCM, Souza MAP. Teste de força de preensão utilizando o dinamômetro Jamar. Acta Fisiatr. 2007;14:104-10. [ Links ]
20. Pereira ND, Ovando AC, Michaelsen SM, Anjos AM, Lima RCM, Nascimento LR, et al. Motor Activity Log-Brazil: reliability and relantionships with motor impairments in individuals with chronic stroke. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2012;70:196-201. PMid:22392112. [ Links ]
21. Dvir Z. Isokinetics: muscle testing, interpretation and clinical applications. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone; 2004. [ Links ]
22. Moraes GF, Faria CD, Teixeira-Salmela LF. Scapular muscle recruitment patterns and isokinetic strength ratios of the shoulder rotator muscles in individuals with and without impingement syndrome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:48S-53. PMid:18201657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.08.007 [ Links ]
23. Kim M, Kothari DH, Lum PS, Patten C. Reliability of dynamic muscle performance in the hemiparetic upper limb. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005;29:9-17. PMid:16386156.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NPT.0000282257.74325.2b [ Links ]
24. Mendonça LM, Bittencourt NFN, Anjos MTS, Silva AA, Fonseca ST. Avaliação muscular isocinética da articulação do ombro em atletas da seleção brasileira de voleibol sub-19 e sub-21 masculino. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2010;16:107-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1517-86922010000200006 [ Links ]
25. Hsu AL, Tang PF, Jan MH. Test-retest reliability of isokinetic muscle strength of the lower extremities in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1130-7. PMid:12161836.http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.33652 [ Links ]
26. Cools AM, Geerooms E, Van den Berghe DF, Cambier DC, Witvrouw EE. Isokinetic scapular muscle performance in young elite gymnasts. J Athl Train. 2007;42:458-63. PMid:18174933 PMCid:PMC2140070. [ Links ]
27. Alon G. Defining and measuring residual deficits of the upper extremity following stroke: A new perspective. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16:167-76. PMid:19632961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1310/tsr1603-167[ Links ]
28. Cools AM, Witvrouw EE, Danneels LA, Vanderstraeten GG, Cambier DC. Test-retest reproducibility of concentric strength values for shoulder girdle protraction and retraction using the Biodex isokinetic dynamometer. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2002;10:129-36. [ Links ]
29. Phadke V, Camargo PR, Ludewig PM. Scapular and rotator cuff muscle activity during arm elevation: A review of normal function and alterations with shoulder impingement. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2009;13:1-9. PMid:20411160 PMCid:PMC2857390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552009005000012 [ Links ]
30. Eng JJ, Lomaglio MJ, MacIntyre DL. Muscle torque preservation and physical activity in individuals with stroke. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:1353-60. PMid:19516167 PMCid:PMC3114014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31819aaad1 [ Links ]
31. Conrad MO, Kamper DG. Isokinetic strength and power deficits in the hand following stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123:1200-6. PMid:22055766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2011.10.004 [ Links ]
32. Mueller MJ, Maluf KS. Tissue adaptation to physical stress: A proposed "physical stress theory" to guide physical therapist practice, education, and research. Phys Ther. 2002;82:383-403. PMid:11922854. [ Links ]
33. Kibler WB. The role of the scapula in athletic shoulder function. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(2):325-37. PMid:9548131. [ Links ]
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário