The Effects of a Compensatory Training Program Adding an Isoinertial Device in the Shoulder Function on Young Tennis Players

Shoulder range of motion in competitive tennis players: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To compare shoulder range of motion (ROM) in dominant vs. nondominant shoulder of competitive tennis players, and to determine whether shoulder ROM is different between younger and older players, or males and females.

Methods

A search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Epistemonikos on December 18, 2023. This study conforms to the principles of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. Clinical studies or case reports on shoulder ROM including external rotation (ER; shoulder at 90° of abduction) and internal rotation (IR) in competitive, elite, or professional tennis players.

Results

We found 25 eligible studies that reported on a total of 18,534 tennis players, of which 20 studies reported the ROM for the dominant and nondominant side. Comparing dominant vs. nondominant shoulders revealed that dominant shoulders had significantly smaller IR (53.0° vs. 62.6°; P < .001). Comparing adults vs. children revealed that adults have significantly smaller IR (44.5° vs. 57.1°; P < .001) and ER (95.3° vs. 110.3°; P < .001). Comparing females vs. males revealed no significant differences in ER (113.4° vs. 104.9°; P = .360) or IR (54.3° vs. 56.4°; P = .710).

Conclusion

IR in shoulders of tennis players is significantly smaller in dominant vs. nondominant sides (53.0° vs. 62.6°, P < .001), and significantly smaller in adults vs. children (44.5° vs. 57.1°, P < .001). These findings could be relevant in the context of physical preparation and training of tennis players, to monitor evolution of IR as a result of their sport and/or as they transition from childhood to adulthood.

From Theory to Practice: A Worldwide Cross-Sectional Survey About Flywheel Training in Basketball

PURPOSE

This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the global implementation of flywheel training (FT) by basketball strength and conditioning (S&C) coaches in various contexts, encompassing daily practice, games, and sessions.

METHODS

Survey data were collected from 117 basketball S&C coaches who participated in a 24-question online survey. The survey was structured into 6 key areas, including country and competition, S&C coach context, training methodology, flywheel and competition, postactivation performance enhancement, and recovery.

RESULTS

Notably, all respondents emphasized the necessity of a familiarization period with flywheel technology, with a substantial 96% indicating that FT yielded improved player performance on the court. The predominant mention was the conical pulley system. During the season, the prevalent approach involved integrating FT into training twice a week, allocating <15 minutes per session, often in conjunction with traditional strength training. A diverse array of lower-body closed kinetic chain exercises were reported, encompassing squats, decelerations, and backward lunges. Intriguingly, FT implementation on match days was unlikely (77%), with the primary aims cited as injury prevention (34%) and enhancing players' strength levels during various phases of the regular season (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing its inherent limitations, this descriptive study provides valuable contextual insights and practical applications for professional basketball practitioners grappling with the utilization of FT.

Perception and use of flywheel resistance training amongst therapists in sport

Flywheel (isoinertial) resistance training is a valid strength training method that has been incorporated in sport for decades, yet little is known about how therapists working in sport apply flywheel resistance training. We aimed to describe and understand current application and perception of flywheel resistance training amongst therapists working in sport. Seventy- three therapists (13 ± 10 years of experience) started part of this survey with 52 completing the entire electronic questionnaire. Nine multiple choice questions on application and perceptions of flywheel training (prerequisites, use of technology, barriers, and upper- and lower-body exercises) preceded two 6-point Likert scale statements on strength and reduction of injury likelihood. Most therapists (47/73) either used or intended to use flywheel training with their athletes and stated familiarisation would be a priority prior to initiating training. Although more than half suggested they were confident flywheel training could enhance strength (27/52) and muscular prehabilitation outcomes (40/52), many remained unsure. Nonetheless, it appears that therapists would mostly include flywheel training within prehabilitation (40/52) or during the later stages of rehabilitation (37/52). To monitor progress, therapists slightly prefer power (30/52) over velocity outputs, while few would not use them at all. Although therapists would prescribe most exercises - the squat, rotational exercise, and unilateral leg curl would be the most selected. Meanwhile, therapists reported remain most unsure or would avoid prescribing the lateral squat and unilateral hip extension. The biggest perceived barriers to flywheel training are equipment cost/space, evidence, and scheduling. The investigation provides valuable insight into the application and perception of flywheel training amongst therapists working in sport.