Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Name of Student

Subject
Name of Tutor
Title of Report
Due Date

Amos Lim Wen Zheng


AASS1074 Basic
Biomechanics
Ling Sen Kian
Lab 3,4 & 5: Forms of
Motion- Range of Motion
5/12/16

Introduction
According to Arus (2013, p. 465), joint flexibility is defined as the ability of a
joint to move through full range of motion and or greater. Arus (2013, p. 479)
also stated range of motion (ROM) is referred to the angle of displacement of
the movement between two joined segments.
There are two types of joint flexibility, active flexibility and passive flexibility.
Active flexibility refers to the maximum ROM that is produced and controlled
by active muscular contraction up to a particular degree of segmented
motion of a joint in a particular direction, whereas passive flexibility refers to
the maximum ROM that is passively moved by an external force acting on
the limb attached to a joint without causing injury (Zatsiorsky 2000).
When measuring the range ROM of a joint, a goniometer will be used. A
goniometer is basically a protractor with two arms. It also either measures
angles or allows an object to be rotated to a precise angular position
There are a few factors which determines and affects joint flexibility and
range of motion.
1. The first factor is the limitation of the structural or architectural of the
relevant joint (Zatsiorsky 2000). According to Alter (2004, p. 18), some
joints are closely packed where joint position where articulating bone is
at maximum contact with each other. Whereas, there are also some
joints are also loosely packed which is when articulating surface in not
congruent with each other, articulating capsules are lax and are not in
maximum contact with each other (Alter 2004). For these joints, for
example, the elbow joint which is closely packed will have a more
limited ROM when compare to the shoulder joint which is loosely
packed. This is because the when the hinge joint of the elbow is in
hyperextension, the olecranon fossa of the humerus is in maximum
contact with the olecranon of the ulna, thus restricting the motion of
the elbow in that direction. Whereas, the humerus attached to the
glenohumeral joint is a ball and socket joint and it can rotate in all
direction, thus have a larger ROM because both articulating surface are
not in maximum contact with each other.
2. The second factor is the mechanical properties of muscles and other
soft tissues surrounding the joint (Zatsiorsky 2000). Big muscles and
excess fatty tissues surrounding a joint tends to inhibit a joint's normal
range of motion by blocking its path of movement physically. For
example, a protruding abdomen can limit how high you can flex your
hip and pull your knee to your ribs (Ng 2013)

3. According to Zatsiorsky (2000, p. 134), the ROM of a joint is affected by


the process of neuromuscular control over the muscle tension and
length and the level of non-functional muscle tension in the same or
other muscles and soft tissues.

4. Age also affects joint flexibility. Based on a study conducted by Nonaka


et. al (2002, ), the ROM of the hip joint decreased progressively with
advancing age. In addition to that, the ROM of both the hip and knee
joint associated with biarticular rectus femoris and hamstring muscles
also showed an age-related reduction. Mita et. al (2002) deduced that
this is problem arise because shortening of muscles or connective
tissues of the surrounding joint occur due to the reduced amenability of
joint structures and degenerative changes in spinal alignment and a
decrease in daily physical activities with advancing age. Thus, this
causes the ability of the muscle to stretch to diminish.
5. Gender also affects joint flexibility. Based on a recent study about the
difference in hip range of motion (ROM) based on gender and
prevalence of positive impingement testing in asymptomatic college
freshman athletes which was conducted by Czuppon et al. (2016), the
result was males generally demonstrated less hip ROM than females.

Objective
To evaluate range of motion of different joints in active and passive
movement.

Equipment
1. Goniometer
2. Marker Pen

Results
*Dominant Limb
Part 1: The Shoulder
a) Glenohumeral Extension
Active ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Left

25

26

32

*Right

25

30

27

27.6666
667
27.3333
333

Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Avera
ge
80
97
93
90
70

79

75

74.66
667

b) Shoulder Complex Flexion


Active ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Left

199

204

200

*Right

183

184

199

201
188.666
667

Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Avera
ge
209
215
219
214.3
333
213
203
213
209.6
667

Part 2: The Elbow


a) Elbow Flexion
Active ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Left
*Right

158
143

158
150

152
152

156
148.333
333

Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Avera
ge
168
168
180
172
175
170
170
171.6
667

Part 3: The Hip


a) Hip Flexion
Active ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Left

115

123

120

119.333

Passive ()
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Averag
e
153
158
158
156.3

*Right

105

103

105

333
104.333
333

142

135

142

333
139.6
667

Discussion
1. Based on the results obtained from the measurement of active and
passive motion at the shoulder, elbow and knee joint, the average
range of motion (ROM) of all the dominant limbs are less than that of
the non-dominant limb.
2. Based on a study conducted by Macedo & Magee (2005) about the
differences in the range of motion between dominant and nondominant
sides of upper and lower extremities, the results showed a statistically
significant difference between dominant and nondominant sides of the
limbs , dominant limb showing less ROM than the non-dominant limb.
3. Another study conducted by Crandall, Carlin and Flynn (2015), the
results of this pilot study confirm others research that found nondominant shoulder ROM was significantly greater compared to the
dominant shoulder in four of the eight measurements.
4. The reason why the dominant limb shows less ROM than that of the
non-dominant limb in all of the research is because, according to
Downar and Sauers (2005), they stated that in baseball, the
reoccurring strain of overhand pitching on the dominant shoulder
causes the shoulder muscles to become increasingly inflexible, thus
reducing ROM. From this statement, we can relate this to the fact that
most of the time, we are constantly relying on our dominant limb which
is our strongest limb to produce torque on a mechanical load with less
contribution from the non-dominant limb. This causes the dominant
limb to be under more accumulative stress from daily activities or
sports. Thus, more strain is accumulated overtime on the dominant
limb compared to the non-dominant limb. The result of this is less ROM
in the dominant limb.
5. According to Anderson and Parr (2012, p. 101), when an individuals
limb is injured, Active Range of Motion (AROM) determines the possible

damage of the contractile tissue surrounding the joint (eg: muscle,


muscletendon junction, tendon, and tendonperiosteal union) and
measures muscle strength and movement coordination of the limb.
Pain will only arise during the active movement of a segmented joint if
the contractile tissue surrounding it is injured.
6. According to Anderson and Parr (2012, p. 101-102), Passive Range of
Motion (PROM) differentiates injury of the contractile tissues from the
injury of the noncontractile or inert tissues (i.e., bone, ligament,
bursae, joint capsule, fascia, dura mater, and nerve roots). If no pain is
present during the passive motion but only occurs during the active
motion, its to be said that the injury arises from the injured contractile
tissue. Whereas, if the noncontractile tissue is injured, pain will be felt
during the passive movement and limitation of movement is present.

7. According to Anderson and Parr (2012, p. 101-102), he emphasised


that active movement should be performed before a passive
movement when assessing an injury. This is because any potentially
painful motions should be performed last to avoid any carryover of
pain from one motion to the next.

Reference
1

Arus, Emeric 2013, Biomechanics of Human Motion - Application in The


Martial Arts, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Zatsiorsky, Vladimir, M 2000, Biomechanics In Sport, Oxford: Blackwell


Science, USA.

Ng, Nick 2013, Factors That Can Affect Joint Range of Motion, viewed 2
December 2016, http://www.livestrong.com/article/90805-factors-can-affectjoint-range/

Alter, Michael, J. 2004, Science of Flexibility, Third Edition, Human Kinetics,


USA.

Nonaka, H, Mita, K, Watakabe, M, Akataki, K, Suzuki, N, Okuwa, T, Yabe, K


2002, Age-related changes in the interactive mobility of the hip and knee
joints: a geometrical analysis, Gait Posture, 2002 Jun;15(3):236-43.

Czuppon, S, Prather, H, Hunt, DM, Steger, May, K, Bloom, NJ, Clohisy, JC,
Larsen, R, Harris-Hayes, M 2016, Gender-Dependent Differences in Hip Range
of Motion and Impingement Testing in Asymptomatic College Freshman
Athletes, PM R, 2016 Nov 10. pii: S1934-1482(16)31121-2. doi:
10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.10.022.

Macedo, LG, Magee 2008, Differences in range of motion between dominant


and nondominant sides of upper and lower extremities, J Manipulative
Physiol Ther, 2008 Oct;31(8):577-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.09.003.

Crandall K, Carlin, Flynn 2015, Comparison of Dominant and Non-dominant


Range of Motion in Collegiate Baseball Pitchers: A Pilot Study, International
Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences 3(2): 16-18, 2015 DOI:
10.13189/saj.2015.030202.

Downar, M, Sauers, L 2005, Clinical Measures of Shoulder Mobility in the


Professional Baseball Player, J Athl Train. 2005 Jan-Mar; 40(1): 2329.

10 Anderson, K, Parr, P2012, Foundations of Athletic Training: Prevention,


Assessment, and Management, 5th Edition, LWW, USA.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen