The Short-term Effectiveness of Scapular Focused Taping on Scapular Movement in Tennis Players With Shoulder Pain

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1320571/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Short-term Effectiveness of Scapular Focused Taping on Scapular Movement in Tennis Players With Shoulder Pain

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1320571/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: This study aimed to investigate the short-term effectiveness of scapular focused taping (SFT) on scapular position and kinematics during the tennis serve among professional players with and without shoulder pain.

Methods: The cohort included 7 players who had no history of shoulder pain (NSP) and 6 players with shoulder pain (SP). All participants performed tennis flat serves while the Qualisys motion capture system recorded three-dimensional scapular kinematic data according to the International Society of Biomechanics recommendations. SFT was applied to the participants’ torso aligned with the lower trapezius, and the same movements were repeated.

Results: In the SP group, the scapula was tilted more posteriorly after the application of SFT as compared to before at ball release and maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint during tennis serve (t=-5.081, p=0.004 and t=-2.623, p=0.047, respectively). In the NSP group, the scapula was tilted more posteriorly with SFT as compared to without at first 75% timing of the cocking phase and maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint (t=-3.733, p=0.010 and t=-2.510, p=0.046, respectively). And the SP group exhibited a more rotated scapula externally after the application of SFT as compared to before at Ball impact (t=5.283, p=0.003).

Conclusions: SFT had a positive immediate effect on the scapular posterior tilting and external rotation during certain phases of the tennis serve among tennis athletes with and without shoulder pain. These findings may help clinicians and sports practitioners to prevent and rehabilitate shoulder injuries for overhead athletes.

Tennis

Serve

Scapula

Taping

Shoulder injury

The tennis serve is a crucial stroke to gain ascendancy in a point, accounting for 45 to 60% of total strokes in one game (1, 2). Overhead throwing motions, such as the overhead stroke in tennis, are the fastest athletic movement performed in sports, during which the shoulder is exposed to extreme multidirectional forces (3, 4). These forces are often applied at the expense of the normal kinematics of the shoulder joint, which can result in a variety of pathologic changes and injuries at this joint (5). The National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System reported that upper extremity injuries in 15 sports account for 18 to 21% of all injuries, and overhead athletes are at a particularly high risk of shoulder injury of up to 30% (6, 7). In the overhead sport tennis, all-level players have an injury incidence of 0.04 to 3.0 injuries per 1000 h of tennis played, and up to 50% of all tennis-related injuries occur in the upper extremities (1, 8).

Several modifiable risk factors for shoulder injury among throwing athletes include reduced glenohumeral internal rotation, excessive glenohumeral external rotation, reduction of total glenohumeral rotation, rotator cuff strength, external rotation weakness, and low ratios of concentric and eccentric external to internal rotation strength (9-11). Recently, scapular dyskinesis was identified as a risk factor for shoulder injuries in overhead athletes (10, 12). Shoulder injuries and pain were found to be related to an increase in upper trapezius muscle activity and reduction in lower trapezius and serratus anterior activities (13-15). These changes impair the upward rotation, posterior tilt, and external rotation of scapula during overhead activities (16-18), and in addition, a deficit in the centralization of the humeral head into the glenoid cavity may occur (14). Therefore, although no direct relationship was established between scapular position and/or movement and specific shoulder pathology, scapular movement strategies specific to changes in scapular position and movement should be included in the treatment or rehabilitation process (19, 20).

A variety of conservative treatments, such as rest, medical treatment, steroid injections, various conventional methods of physical therapy and exercises, and kinesiology taping, have been used to relieve pain, maintain joint function, and prevent exacerbation of shoulder injuries (21). Among these methods, application of kinesiology taping is a relatively novel option that is widely used regardless of the level of skill, gender, and age (21), and is known to reduce edema, relieve pain, increase muscle activity of the para-scapular muscles, and improve functional activity and joint positioning (22). Hsu et al. (23) reported that elastic taping, such as kinesiology taping, resulted in increased lower trapezius activity and positive scapular movement in baseball players with impingement syndrome. Ozer et al. (24) reported that taping, regardless of the material, improved scapular dyskinesis and pectoralis minor length in overhead athletes. Although there has been much debate in the literature about whether or not taping is beneficial in patients and athletes with shoulder pain (25, 26), many scholars and practitioners believe that it merely provides mechanical stabilization, rather than therapeutic efficacy (25). Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the short-term effectiveness of scapular focused taping (SFT) on scapular position and kinematics during overhead activity among tennis athletes with shoulder pain. We hypothesized that application of SFT on the lower trapezius would increase upward rotation, posterior tilting, and external rotation, and decrease the angular velocity and joint moment of each scapular movement during the tennis serve.

Study Design

This quasi-experimental study was approved by the institutional review board of the Korea Institute of Sport Science. To evaluate the short-term effectiveness of SFT on scapular movement during the flat serve among tennis players with and without shoulder pain, SFT was applied to their torso aligned with the lower trapezius. The scapular position in five events, angular velocity, and moment of scapular movement in four phases during the serve were analyzed. Experiments were conducted in an indoor tennis court for three-dimensional analysis, and all participants performed a warm-up of at least 15 minutes with their own racquet to prevent injury and adapt to the experimental environment. All tests were carried out on the same day.

Patients

A total of 13 professional tennis players took part in the study, including 7 players who had no dysfunction during full arm elevation and/or history of shoulder pain (NSP) in the 6-month period preceding this study (age: 21.29 ± 1.38 yrs; height: 172.42 ± 9.13 cm; weight: 68.86 ± 7.34 kg; years playing tennis : 12.00 ± 2.38 yrs), and 6 players with shoulder pain (SP) with at least three positive results for Hawkins-Kennedy test, Neer test, empty can test, and painful arc test (age: 21.83 ± 0.75 yrs; height: 173.33 ± 16.04 cm; weight: 68.00 ± 12.50 kg; years playing tennis: 10.83 ± 1.94 yrs). There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups, and all participants signed a statement of informed consent prior to participation in the study.

Data Collection

Kinematic data were collected in an indoor tennis court using the Qualisys motion capture system (Qualisys AB, Sweden) consisting of 10 infrared cameras (7+, Qualisys AB) and a 1-color video camera (Oqus 2c, Qualisys AB). The marker set included 11 markers (diameter of 14 mm), located to the spinous processes of the 7th cervical and 8th thoracic vertebrae, suprasternal notch, xiphoid process, acromioclavicular joint, middle of scapular spine, root of the scapular spine, inferior angle of scapula, acromial angle of the scapula, glenohumeral rotation center, and elbow medial and lateral epicondyles of the participants’ dominant arm according to the International Society of Biomechanics recommendations (27). An additional acromion marker cluster was attached to the meeting point between the acromion and scapula spine, and the reflective markers were attached to the participants’ own racquet and tennis ball to register the impact event. The specific static model calibration for each participant defined the scapulothoracic joint motion axes and planes.

Before the measurement of scapular movement, all participants performed the 15-minute warm-up and were educated to perform 12 flat serves to land the ball in the service box at their greatest velocity (28). Subsequently, SFT was applied to the participants’ torso aligned with the lower trapezius by a well-trained expert, and the procedures were repeated and measured in the same way.

Data Analysis

The scapular data of three successful serves were collected and analyzed. The tennis serve was divided into four phases based on five key events (28): (E1) ball release, (E2) first 75% of the cocking phase, (E3) maximal external rotation of the humerothoracic joint, (E4) ball impact, and (E5) minimal height of the tennis racquet. The cocking phase was defined as the motion from ball release to maximal external rotation of the humerothoracic joint (28). The scapular posterior/anterior tilt, upward/downward rotation, and internal/external rotation relative to the thorax were measured at each event, and the angular velocity and joint moment were calculated for each phase.

Scapular Focused Taping

The SFT technique was applied to the scapula of the participants’ dominant arm using two pieces of standard 2-inch tape (MSSM Kino Soft Inc, Seoul, South Korea) according to the method suggested by Lewis et al. (29). First, the participants were seated on a stool while keeping their backs straight and asked to fully retract and depress their scapula. One I-shaped tape was applied from the 1st to the 12th thoracic vertebra with light tension (15-25%) and the other I-shaped tape was applied diagonally from the middle of the scapular spine to the 12th thoracic vertebra with the same tension. Subjects were not required to actively maintain this posture after tape application (30).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 23.0. (IBM Corporation, New York, USA) with significance levels set at 5%. The differences between the groups for continuous data were compared using an independent t-test at each event and phase. A dependent t-test was used to compare the data depending on the application of SFT, and 2-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to identify interactive effects between groups and taping condition.

The changes in scapula position depending on SFT application onto the lower trapezius are shown in Tables 1 to 3. In the sagittal plane, there were no significant differences between groups at any event both before and after applying SFT. In the SP group, the scapula was tilted more posteriorly after the application of SFT as compared to before at E1 and E3 (t=-5.081, p=0.004 and t=-2.623, p=0.047, respectively). In addition, in the NSP group, the scapula was tilted more posteriorly with SFT as compared to without at E2 and E3 (t=-3.733, p=0.010 and t=-2.510, p=0.046, respectively). In both the frontal and transverse planes, there were no significant differences between groups at any event both before and after applying SFT. Only the SP group exhibited a more rotated scapula externally after the application of SFT as compared to before at E4 (t=5.283, p=0.003).

The differences in angular velocity and joint moment during scapular movement are shown in Tables 4 and 5. In the SP group, with SFT players had a higher angular velocity of scapular internal rotation during P3 compared to without (t=-3.187, p=0.024). Next, we measured joint moment during scapula movement. Before the application of SFT, while we observed an upward rotation of the scapula in the SP group during P1, we found a downward rotation in the NSP group (t=2.418, p=0.034).

In this study, we investigated the short-term effectiveness of SFT, applied to the lower trapezius, has on scapular position and kinematics during the flat serve among tennis athletes with and without shoulder pain. The results suggest that whilst SFT had a positive immediate effect on the scapular posterior tilting and external rotation in all players, it did not positively affect angular velocity and joint moment of scapular movement.

The scapula plays a vital role in normal upper extremity function and in controlling the position of the glenoid (15). Small changes in the scapulothoracic joint can affect the alignment and forces involved in movement around the glenohumeral joint, which may cause shoulder pain (15). A previous study reported that in athletes with shoulder pain, the scapula rotated upwardly during arm elevation to compensate for shoulder impingement, in addition to inadequate posterior tilting of the scapula to narrow the subacromial space (13). Another study demonstrated that patients with shoulder pain had a reduced upward rotation of the scapula during arm elevation compared to those without, and there were no differences in posterior tilting and internal/external rotation of the scapula (16). In addition, Lopes et al. (18) showed that the scapula of participants with shoulder pain had less external rotation during descending phases of shoulder flexion compared to those without. However, they also found that the difference in scapular position between the two groups during overhead activity was not observed regardless of the application of SFT. The inconsistency between these studies and ours is related to the selected shoulder movement: while the aforementioned studies were conducted during constrained planar motions, we here analyzed the scapular position during tennis-related activity. Therefore, any association between shoulder injuries and scapula position (and/or movement) in studies with constrained shoulder movement may not translate directly to sports activities (20).

Shoulder pain and/or injury is associated with late cocking, and during deceleration of overhead throwing, extremes of motion occur at the shoulder that lead to kinematic alterations of the shoulder joint (5). A previous study on scapular movement during the tennis serve showed that the scapula rotated internally and upwardly, and was tilted posteriorly during the late cocking phase (28). The scapular posterior tilt and external rotation is critical to prevent the occurrence of shoulder injury, such as posterior internal impingement (31). The present study provides evidence that SFT applied to the lower trapezius caused posterior tilt of the scapula at some events, including the maximal external rotation of the humerothoracic joint during tennis serve, in all athletes regardless of shoulder pain. These taping-induced effects on scapular position could be explained by the alignment correction SFT provides (30), and SFT may also allow overhead activities to be more balanced and stabilized with regard to the base of the scapula (23). However, we did not observe significant changes in scapular internal/external rotation or upward/downward rotation in this study. This indicates that the taping method applied in this study did improve the movement components controlled by the lower trapezius, but not those that underlie other directions of scapular motion.

Joint moment calculated based on kinematics data of the human body is a very important parameter in biomechanics (32). In addition, joint angular velocity is a measure of how fast each joint moves during activities, and the comparison of joint angular velocity between patients with and without pain may help researchers to identify how well each individual joint movement fits in with normal kinematics (33). Moreover, the motion velocity of scapular kinematics may provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of shoulder injury (34). Assessing joint moment, we found an upward rotation of the scapula in participants with shoulder pain, whereas in those without shoulder pain the scapula rotated downwardly. This result is likely related to the compensation for shoulder pain, providing relief by increasing the subacromial space (35). However, the application of SFT increased angular velocity of scapular internal rotation between maximal external rotation of the humerothoracic joint and ball impact among athletes with shoulder pain. Because the taping method in this study was applied to improve scapular posterior tilting, it did not have an impact on other movements of the scapula. It should also be noted that although all participants rested after non- SFT measurements prior to the application of SFT, a total of 24 flat serves were performed during a relatively short period of time, inducing fatigue of the scapular stabilizer muscles; this may have affected the performance and results.

As previously mentioned, although SFT is widely used among athletes, its efficacy has been a subject of debate (21). And the velocity of arm movement may affect the scapulohumeral ratios, and specific movements of the scapula increase during dynamic tasks of arm elevation compared to static tasks (34). Therefore, this study identified the differences of scapular movement among elite tennis players with and without shoulder pain and verified the effect of SFT on scapular movement during tennis serve that was known to engender a high risk of shoulder injury using 3-dimentional analysis. Further studies are needed to explore the effects of various taping methods on scapular kinematics during tennis-specific activity.

This study demonstrates that SFT applied to the lower trapezius had a positive immediate effect on the scapular posterior tilting and external rotation during the tennis serve among athletes with and without shoulder pain. However, it did not positively affect the angular velocity or joint moment of scapular movement. These findings may help clinicians and sports practitioners in the prevention and rehabilitation of shoulder injuries for overhead athletes.

SFT: scapular focused taping; NSP: non-shoulder pain; SP: shoulder pain; E1: ball release; E2: first 75% of the cocking phase; E3: maximal external rotation of the humerothoracic joint; E4: ball impact; E5: minimal height of the tennis racquet; P1: From ball release(E1) to first 75% timing of the cocking phase(E2); P2: From E2 to maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint(E3); P3: From E3 to ball impact(E4); P4: From E4 to minimal height of the tennis racket(E5).

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Korea Institute of Sport Science, and all subjects provided written informed consent. All study-related procedures were conducted in accordance with tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: The raw datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the agreement with the tennis team, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding: This study received no external funding.

Authors' contributions: JCP and HC collected, cleaned and analysed the data. TK, ZZ, and HC made major contributions in the writing and revising of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to acknowledge the athletes and coaching staff of the tennis team for their contribution to this research.

Abrams GD, Renstrom PA, Safran MR. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal injury in the tennis player. Br J Sports Med. 2012 Jun;46(7):492-8.
Gillet B, Begon M, Diger M, Berger-Vachon C, Rogowski I. Shoulder range of motion and strength in young competitive tennis players with and without history of shoulder problems. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2018;31:22-8.
Hassan Shaheen AA, Gillani SA, Raza M, Waqas M. Frequency of shoulder pain among overhead throwing athletes. Rawal Medical Journal. 2020;45(1)
Dugas JR, Mathis TP. Partial rotator cuff tears in throwing athletes. Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine. 2016;24(3):196-202.
Bakshi N, Freehill MT. The overhead athletes shoulder. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2018 Sep;26(3):88-94.
Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: Summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train. 2007 Apr-Jun;42(2):311-9.
Laudner K, Sipes R. The incidence of shoulder injury among collegiate overhead athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport. 2009;2(2):260-8.
Pluim BM, Staal JB, Windler GE, Jayanthi N. Tennis injuries: Occurrence, aetiology, and prevention. Br J Sports Med. 2006 May;40(5):415-23.
Almeida GPL, Silveira PF, Rosseto NP, Barbosa G, Ejnisman B, Cohen M. Glenohumeral range of motion in handball players with and without throwing-related shoulder pain. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery. 2013;22(5):602-7.
Clarsen B, Bahr R, Andersson SH, Munk R, Myklebust G. Reduced glenohumeral rotation, external rotation weakness and scapular dyskinesis are risk factors for shoulder injuries among elite male handball players: A prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2014 Sep;48(17):1327-33.
Andersson SH, Bahr R, Clarsen B, Myklebust G. Preventing overuse shoulder injuries among throwing athletes: A cluster-randomised controlled trial in 660 elite handball players. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;51(14):1073-80.
Keller RA, De Giacomo AF, Neumann JA, Limpisvasti O, Tibone JE. Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit and risk of upper extremity injury in overhead athletes: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Sports health. 2018;10(2):125-32.
Lin J, Hsieh S, Cheng W, Chen WC, Lai Y. Adaptive patterns of movement during arm elevation test in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2011;29(5):653-7.
Ludewig PM, Cook TM. Alterations in shoulder kinematics and associated muscle activity in people with symptoms of shoulder impingement. Phys Ther. 2000;80(3):276-91.
Cools A, Declercq G, Cambier D, Mahieu N, Witvrouw E. Trapezius activity and intramuscular balance during isokinetic exercise in overhead athletes with impingement symptoms. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17(1):25-33.
Lawrence RL, Braman JP, LaPrade RF, Ludewig PM. Comparison of 3-dimensional shoulder complex kinematics in individuals with and without shoulder pain, part 1: Sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular, and scapulothoracic joints. journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy. 2014;44(9):636-45.
Borstad JD, Ludewig PM. The effect of long versus short pectoralis minor resting length on scapular kinematics in healthy individuals. Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy. 2005;35(4):227-38.
Lopes AD, Timmons MK, Grover M, Ciconelli RM, Michener LA. Visual scapular dyskinesis: Kinematics and muscle activity alterations in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(2):298-306.
Huang T, Lin J, Ou H, Chen Y. Movement pattern of scapular dyskinesis in symptomatic overhead athletes. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):1-7.
McQuade KJ, Borstad J, de Oliveira AS. Critical and theoretical perspective on scapular stabilization: What does it really mean, and are we on the right track? Phys Ther. 2016;96(8):1162-9.
Kul A, Ugur M. Comparison of the efficacy of conventional physical therapy modalities and kinesio taping treatments in shoulder impingement syndrome. Eurasian J Med. 2019 Jun;51(2):139-44.
Kase K. Clinical therapeutic applications of the kinesio (! R) taping method. Albuquerque. 2003
Hsu Y, Chen W, Lin H, Wang WT, Shih Y. The effects of taping on scapular kinematics and muscle performance in baseball players with shoulder impingement syndrome. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology. 2009;19(6):1092-9.
Ozer ST, Karabay D, Yesilyaprak SS. Taping to improve scapular dyskinesis, scapular upward rotation, and pectoralis minor length in overhead athletes. Journal of Athletic Training. 2018;53(11):1063-70.
Saracoglu I, Emuk Y, Taspinar F. Does taping in addition to physiotherapy improve the outcomes in subacromial impingement syndrome? A systematic review. Physiotherapy theory and practice. 2018;34(4):251-63.
Fitch C, Frendt T, Lipinski C, Moore C, Donovan L. Efficacy of kinesiology taping as an adjunct treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of Athletic Training. 2017;52(6):S291.
Wu G, Van der Helm, Frans CT, Veeger HD, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J, Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38(5):981-92.
Rogowski I, Creveaux T, Sevrez V, Cheze L, Dumas R. How does the scapula move during the tennis serve? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Jul;47(7):1444-9.
Lewis JS, Wright C, Green A. Subacromial impingement syndrome: The effect of changing posture on shoulder range of movement. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2005;35(2):72-87.
Shaheen AF, Bull AM, Alexander CM. Rigid and elastic taping changes scapular kinematics and pain in subjects with shoulder impingement syndrome; an experimental study. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2015;25(1):84-92.
Manske RC, Grant-Nierman M, Lucas B. Shoulder posterior internal impingement in the overhead athlete. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Apr;8(2):194-204.
Xiong B, Zeng N, Li H, Yang Y, Li Y, Huang M, Shi W, Du M, Zhang Y. Intelligent prediction of human lower extremity joint moment: An artificial neural network approach. IEEE Access. 2019;7:29973-80.
Mentiplay BF, Banky M, Clark RA, Kahn MB, Williams G. Lower limb angular velocity during walking at various speeds. Gait Posture. 2018;65:190-6.
Fayad F, Hoffmann G, Hanneton S, Yazbeck C, Lefèvre-Colau MM, Poiraudeau S, Revel M, Roby-Brami A. 3-D scapular kinematics during arm elevation: Effect of motion velocity. Clin Biomech. 2006;21(9):932-41.
Kibler WB, Thomas SJ. Pathomechanics of the throwing shoulder. Sports medicine and arthroscopy review. 2012;20(1):22-9.

Table 1. Differences in posterior/anterior tilting of the scapula depending on taping conditions.

Event	Group	Before SFT	After SFT	t (p)	Taping*Group
E1	SP (n=6)	10.27±12.84	13.28±11.95	-5.081 (0.004)	F=3.190 p=0.102
	NSP (n=7)	-1.82±19.65	-0.90±18.46	-0.966 (0.371)
	t (p)	1.286 (0.225)	1.610 (0.136)
E2	SP (n=6)	-1.04±12.89	1.39±12.27	-1.674 (0.155)	F=0.020 p=0.890
	NSP (n=7)	6.21±9.17	8.86±9.26	-3.733 (0.010)
	t (p)	-1.183 (0.262)	-1.251 (0.237)
E3	SP (n=6)	14.26±18.55	17.34±17.68	-2.623 (0.047)	F=2.370 p=0.152
	NSP (n=7)	17.34±8.64	18.57±9.27	-2.510 (0.046)
	t (p)	-0.395 (0.701)	-0.161 (0.875)
E4	SP (n=6)	-12.19±14.21	-5.60±14.61	-1.815 (0.129)	F=1.179 p=0.301
	NSP (n=7)	-5.70±2.48	-4.17±9.33	-0.510 (0.628)
	t (p)	-1.104 (0.318)	-0.214 (0.835)
E5	SP (n=6)	30.78±10.08	31.03±10.31	-0.072 (0.945)	F=0.248 p=0.628
	NSP (n=7)	35.76±11.90	31.99±20.81	0.553 (0.600)
	t (p)	-0.806 (0.437)	-0.103 (0.920)
Values express as mean ± standard deviation. Unit: deg(°) Positive (+) and negative (-) values mean posterior and anterior tilt, respectively. SP: shoulder pain group, NSP: non-shoulder pain group, SFT: scapular focused taping E1: Ball release, E2: First 75% timing of the cocking phase, E3: Maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint, E4: Ball impact, E5: Minimal height of the tennis racket

Table 2. Differences in upward/downward rotation of the scapula depending on taping conditions.

Event	Group	Before SFT	After SFT	t (p)	Taping*Group
E1	SP (n=6)	-26.42±14.17	-26.16±13.79	-0.224 (0.832)	F=1.110 p=0.315
	NSP (n=7)	-42.15±17.53	-40.48±17.28	-2.186 (0.071)
	t (p)	1.756 (0.107)	1.630 (0.131)
E2	SP (n=6)	-43.47±18.14	-48.41±14.85	1.890 (0.117)	F=2.425 p=0.148
	NSP (n=7)	-65.01±17.59	-65.13±17.13	0.067 (0.949)
	t (p)	2.169 (0.053)	1.861 (0.090)
E3	SP (n=6)	-70.45±22.77	-69.61±25.10	-0.363 (0.731)	F=0.330 p=0.577
	NSP (n=7)	-72.91±13.20	-73.50±12.24	0.497 (0.637)
	t (p)	0.242 (0.813)	0.364 (0.722)
E4	SP (n=6)	-99.73±22.06	-102.56±20.71	1.940 (0.110)	F=3.495 p=0.088
	NSP (n=7)	-94.01±19.57	-92.62±20.17	-0.820 (0.444)
	t (p)	-0.496 (0.630)	-0.872 (0.402)
E5	SP (n=6)	-27.55±11.37	-22.01±8.68	-0.876 (0.421)	F=0.147 p=0.709
	NSP (n=7)	-35.30±10.18	-32.36±11.05	-0.905 (0.400)
	t (p)	1.297 (0.221)	1.853 (0.091)
Values express as mean ± standard deviation. Unit: deg(°) Positive (+) and negative (-) values mean upward and downward rotation, respectively. SP: shoulder pain group, NSP: non-shoulder pain group, SFT: scapular focused taping E1: Ball release, E2: First 75% timing of the cocking phase, E3: Maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint, E4: Ball impact, E5: Minimal height of the tennis racket

Table 3. Differences in internal/external rotation of the scapula depending on taping conditions.

Event	Group	Before SFT	After SFT	t (p)	Taping*Group
E1	SP (n=6)	1.63±23.21	-9.61±19.94	0.972 (0.376)	F=0.929 p=0.356
	NSP (n=7)	-0.73±22.54	-1.66±22.72	0.940 (0.401)
	t (p)	0.186 (0.856)	-0.664 (0.520)
E2	SP (n=6)	-50.01±22.75	-49.33±24.28	-0.290 (0.783)	F=0.483 p=0.501
	NSP (n=7)	-54.89±19.89	-56.03±18.94	0.825 (0.441)
	t (p)	0.413 (0.688)	0.559 (0.587)
E3	SP (n=6)	-90.01±14.52	-90.52±16.09	0.650 (0.544)	F=0.352 p=0.565
	NSP (n=7)	-100.07±17.38	-99.44±16.93	-0.388 (0.712)
	t (p)	1.120 (0.287)	0.968 (0.354)
E4	SP (n=6)	-51.63±27.30	-62.95±24.03	5.283 (0.003)	F=0.610 p=0.451
	NSP (n=7)	-61.36±20.99	-69.02±22.50	1.956 (0.098)
	t (p)	0.727 (0.482)	0.470 (0.647)
E5	SP (n=6)	11.16±17.55	0.48±23.14	0.868 (0.425)	F=0.144 p=0.711
	NSP (n=7)	7.59±12.85	1.75±6.24	1.072 (0.325)
	t (p)	0.424 (0.680)	-0.140 (0.891)
Values express as mean ± standard deviation. Unit: deg(°) Positive (+) and negative (-) values mean internal and external rotation, respectively. SP: shoulder pain group, NSP: non-shoulder pain group, SFT: scapular focused taping E1: Ball release, E2: First 75% timing of the cocking phase, E3: Maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint, E4: Ball impact, E5: Minimal height of the tennis racket

Table 4. Differences in angular velocity during scapular movement in each phase depending on taping conditions.

Phase

Group

Posterior(+)/Anterior(-)

Tilting

Upward(+)/Downward(-)

Rotation

Internal(+)/External(-)

Rotation

Before SFT

After SFT

t (p)

Before SFT

After SFT

t (p)

Before SFT

After SFT

t (p)

SP (n=6)

146.47

±89.06

125.18

±81.31

1.891

(0.117)

122.59

±57.70

112.22

±74.88

0.611

(0.568)

69.92

±122.58

30.80

±32.02

0.771

(0.476)

NSP (n=7)

122.67

±69.58

116.24

±61.61

0.559

(0.596)

132.88

±74.19

134.57

±69.38

-0.114

(0.890)

67.81

±71.93

74.37

±130.75

-0.213

(0.838)

t (p)

0.541

(0.599)

0.225

(0.826)

-0.275

(0.788)

-0.559

(0.588)

0.039

(0.970)

-0.852

(0.423)

SP (n=6)

228.28

±102.54

224.25

±92.36

0.234

(0.824)

119.42

±70.36

126.46

±58.84

-0.215

(0.839)

71.32

±116.22

16.54

±42.14

1.218

(0.277)

NSP (n=7)

193.39

±61.46

183.87

±44.62

0.397

(0.705)

199.52

±92.92

179.56

±110.41

1.090

(0.318)

68.72

±77.93

78.38

±90.86

-0.373

(0.722)

t (p)

0.729

(0.487)

1.030

(0.325)

-1.726

(0.112)

-1.052

(0.315)

0.048

(0.963)

-1.525

(0.155)

SP (n=6)

-33.90

±124.84

59.77

±58.10

-1.753

(0.140)

-60.05

±202.81

27.12

±270.18

-1.731

(0.144)

855.53

±375.97

1126.17

±262.57

-3.187

(0.024)

NSP (n=7)

-20.86

±185.95

-23.42

±121.09

0.050

(0.962)

-3.57

±147.74

2.36

±131.46

-0.297

(0.777)

996.42

±577.17

1047.28

±462.14

-0.522

(0.620)

t (p)

-0.145

(0.887)

1.532

(0.154)

-0.580

(0.573)

0.205

(0.844)

-0.511

(0.620)

0.369

(0.719)

SP (n=6)

652.97

±267.41

680.75

±195.41

-0.447

(0.673)

1033.80

±483.02

1009.14

±372.01

0.242

(0.818)

1222.89

±476.53

1245.60

±312.99

-0.213

(0.820)

NSP (n=7)

724.12

±270.79

734.35

±228.02

-0.275

(0.793)

882.36

±413.75

841.46

±316.49

0.314

(0.764)

1197.89

±406.99

1173.25

±271.78

0.183

(0.860)

t (p)

-0.475

(0.644)

-0.451

(0.661)

0.610

(0.555)

0.879

(0.389)

0.102

(0.921)

0.447

(0.664)

Values express as mean ± standard deviation. Unit: deg/s, SP: shoulder pain group, NSP: non-shoulder pain group, SFT: scapular focused taping, P1: From ball release(E1) to first 75% timing of the cocking phase(E2), P2: From E2 to maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint(E3), P3: From E3 to ball impact(E4), P4: From E4 to minimal height of the tennis racket(E5)

Table 5. Differences in joint moment during scapular movement in each phase depending on taping conditions.

Phase

Group

Posterior(+)/Anterior(-)

Tilting

Upward(+)/Downward(-)

Rotation

Internal(+)/External(-)

Rotation

Before SFT

After SFT

t (p)

Before SFT

After SFT

t (p)

Before SFT

After SFT

t (p)

(n=6)

3.64

±1.66

3.67

±1.87

-0.161

(0.878)

0.51

±0.93

0.56

±0.84

-0.450

(0.702)

4.29

±3.06

4.51

±2.81

-0.913

(0.403)

NSP (n=7)

2.69

±2.30

2.38

±1.66

1.035

(0.341)

-0.58

±0.69

-0.34

±1.02

-0.741

(0.487)

5.11

±4.29

5.18

±3.73

-0.160

(0.878)

t (p)

0.837

(0.421)

1.325

(0.212)

2.418

(0.034)

1.722

(0.113)

-0.391

(0.704)

-0.360

(0.726)

(n=6)

10.54

±4.89

10.95

±5.69

-0.686

(0.523)

15.33

±5.42

16.06

±5.56

-0.744

(0.491)

13.87

±7.79

13.81

±7.49

0.101

(0.924)

NSP (n=7)

11.04

±6.44

11.50

±6.38

-1.186

(0.280)

14.83

±9.93

15.34

±9.47

-0.506

(0.631)

15.31

±8.69

15.43

±9.13

-0.383

(0.715)

t (p)

-0.157

(0.878)

-0.163

(0.874)

0.109

(0.915)

0.163

(0.874)

-0.311

(0.761)

-0.344

(0.737)

(n=6)

2.72

±3.77

4.31

±4.32

-1.768

(0.137)

15.57

±6.61

17.48

±5.19

-2.071

(0.093)

4.02

±4.85

3.94

±7.07

0.029

(0.978)

NSP (n=7)

0.87

±1.79

1.63

±2.68

-0.725

(0.496)

17.03

±9.61

17.55

±9.15

-0.443

(0.674)

1.61

±4.19

0.25

±6.84

1.149

(0.294)

t (p)

1.163

(0.269)

1.369

(0.198)

-0.312

(0.761)

-0.017

(0.987)

0.963

(0.356)

0.954

(0.360)

(n=6)

3.40

±1.72

3.63

±1.74

-0.264

(0.802)

9.50

±3.54

11.26

±4.61

-2.207

(0.078)

4.13

±3.49

3.77

±4.10

0.725

(0.501)

NSP (n=7)

2.47

±1.35

3.30

±1.14

-1.561

(0.169)

10.74

±6.96

11.33

±7.54

-0.735

(0.490)

4.74

±3.44

6.26

±4.10

-1.822

(0.118)

t (p)

1.095

(0.297)

0.399

(0.698)

-0.392

(0.703)

-0.019

(0.985)

-0.314

(0.759)

-1.088

(0.300)

Values express as mean ± standard deviation. Unit: Nm, SP: shoulder pain group, NSP: non-shoulder pain group, SFT: scapular focused taping, P1: From ball release(E1) to first 75% timing of the cocking phase(E2), P2: From E2 to maximally externally rotated humerothoracic joint(E3), P3: From E3 to ball impact(E4), P4: From E4 to minimal height of the tennis racket(E5)

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Short-term Effectiveness of Scapular Focused Taping on Scapular Movement in Tennis Players With Shoulder Pain

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

REFERENCES

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1