Differences in shoulder function among badminton players broken down by age and sex

Xiao Zhou,Kazuhiro Imai,Zhuo Chen,Xiao-Xuan Liu,Eiji Watanabe
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.05.020
2024-10-01
Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies
Abstract:Background Improving the understanding of shoulder function for badminton players would develop injury preventive programs. However, no studies on shoulder function reference parameters of badminton players when controlling for age and sex have been found. Objectives To examine the differences in shoulder function between elementary school-age badminton players and university badminton players using shoulder range of motion. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Testing at elementary school and university. Participants 67 players (7-12 year-old players and 18-22 year-old players) without shoulder injury experience. Main outcome measures Shoulder range of motion (ROM) included internal rotation (IR), external rotation (ER), and total ROM (TROM). Results Significant differences in shoulder IR of both sides (dominant: 97.67° vs 77.78°, p < 0.001; nondominant:104.70° vs 88.89°, p < 0.001), dominant ER (126.30° vs 115.98°, p = 0.013), TROM of both sides (dominant: 222.97° vs 193.76°, p < 0.001; nondominant: 222.90° vs 200.10°, p = 0.001), and TROM loss (-0.06° vs 6.34°, p = 0.047) existed between elementary school-age and university players. Significant differences in IR of both sides existed between male elementary school-age and university players (dominant: 98.38° vs 72.50°, p < 0.001; nondominant: 106.72° vs 83.99°, p < 0.001) as well as in female players (dominant: 95.25° vs 82.84°, p = 0.007; nondominant: 103.01° vs 93.57°, p = 0.035). Additionally, significant differences in IR of both sides (dominant: 72.50° vs 82.84°, p = 0.016; nondominant: 83.99° vs 93.57°, p = 0.012) and TROM of both sides (dominant: 188.24° vs 199.05°, p = 0.025; nondominant: 192.43° vs 207.44°, p = 0.002) existed between male and female university players. Conclusions Compared with university badminton players, elementary school-age badminton players showed significantly greater shoulder IR and TROM of both sides and dominant ER while significantly smaller TROM loss. However, regardless of sex, no significant differences of bilateral deficit for glenohumeral rotation existed between elementary school-age and university badminton players.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?