![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objectives
Upper limb neurodynamic testing (ULNT) can be used clinically to assist in identifying neural tissue involvement in patients with upper quarter pain and dysfunction. Consideration for scapular positioning is a crucial component of ULNT standardization, as variations in positioning may dramatically impact sensory and motor responses. This study aimed to determine if there was a meaningful difference in test outcomes when the ULNT was performed in alternative scapular positions.
Methods
This cross-sectional study included 40 asymptomatic individuals. Repeated ULNT testing was performed on the dominant limb with the scapula blocked in neutral (ULNTb) and in scapular depression (ULNTd). Sensory responses, muscle activity, and range of motion outcomes were compared between the two test variations.
Results
Pre-positioning in scapular depression (ULNTd) led to reduced elbow extension range of motion, provoked greater upper trapezius muscle activity and an earlier onset and broader area of sensory responses compared to ULNTb.
Discussion
During ULNTb, the limbs were taken further into range and elicited reduced muscle activation and more localized sensory response providing a less vigorous version of the test. This study demonstrates that scapular positioning has a meaningful impact on ULNT test outcomes in healthy, asymptomatic individuals. The ULNTd can be considered a more vigorous version that may be appropriate when the cervical motions commonly utilized for structural differentiation are limited or contraindicated.
The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions with data collection and manuscript editing: Emily Hellmuth, Alissa Lamb, Leanna Stracco, and Philip Villa. This study was funded in part by a Faculty Research Grant through Samuel Merritt University.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.