Background:Posterior shoulder tightness, as demonstrated by limited internal rotation range of motion, is a suggested factor in many shoulder pathologies. Methods to increase posterior shoulder mobility may be beneficial.Hypothesis:Shoulder internal rotation range of motion will not change with either of 2 interventions: cross-body stretch alone and cross-body stretch plus posterior capsule joint mobilization.Study Design:Randomized controlled single-blinded clinical trial.Methods:The study comprised 39 college-age asymptomatic participants (7 men, 32 women) who were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: stretching only (n, 20) and stretching plus posterior joint mobilizations (n, 19). All had a between-shoulder difference of internal rotation of 10° or more. Shoulder internal and external rotation was measured before and after a 4-week intervention period and 4 weeks postintervention. Participants in the stretching-only group performed the cross-body stretch on the limited side. Those in the other group (cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization) were treated with posterior joint mobilization techniques on the limited side.Results:Overall means for internal rotation of the treated shoulders significantly increased over baseline at the end of the intervention period and at 4 weeks postintervention. External rotation in all shoulders remained unchanged. By the end of intervention, total motion increased significantly from baseline but decreased significantly from the end of intervention to 4 weeks postintervention. Although not statistically significant, the second group (cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization) had greater increases in internal rotation. At 4 weeks postintervention, the second group had maintained its internal rotation gains to a greater degree than those of the stretching-only group.Conclusion:Internal rotation increased in both groups. Inclusion of joint mobilization in a rehabilitation program created trends toward increased shoulder internal rotation mobility.Clinical Relevance:Both methods—cross-body stretch and cross-body stretch plus joint mobilization—may be beneficial for those with limited internal rotation range of motion.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction. Many published studies have examined the effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), but none has evaluated its role in treating collegiate athletes. The authors examined collegiate athletes’ perception of OMT. Methods. A cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 592 collegiate athletes was conducted from two universities in the midwestern United States during August-September 2019. The athletes completed a 12-item survey during pre-participation physical evaluations at their respective institutions. Main outcome measures included pain, need for pain medication, stress and anxiety associated with injuries, and overall satisfaction with the OMT in recovery and return to sports. Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate association between the variables. Results. The participation rate was 80.6% (477/592). Slightly fewer than 7% (31/477) of the athletes were familiar with OMT. Eighteen of the 31 athletes (58.1%) had received osteopathic manipulation as part of a treatment plan for injury. Of these athletes, 94.4% (17/18) reported a decreased need for pain medication and 83.3% (15/18) had reduced stress and anxiety related to their injury. One in three of them expressed interest in receiving osteopathic manipulation as a treatment option for an injury. The athletes reported general satisfaction with OMT in their recovery and return to sports. Conclusion. The findings demonstrated the interest and benefits of OMT among collegiate athletes. This evidence supported previous findings about perceived efficacy of OMT in treating patients regardless of injury and diagnosis. Future studies need to establish causal relationship among OMT, stress and anxiety, pain, and use of pain medications.

No abstract