In this case series, three elite college-level female volleyball players between 21 and 22 years old experienced acute abdominal pain during an overhead swinging motion. All three athletes were diagnosed with acute rectus abdominis (RA) muscle strain using musculoskeletal ultrasound, without the need for MRI. Each athlete sustained severe RA injury resulting in substantial loss of playing time and warranted a focused rehabilitation program, which emphasized core strengthening, physical modalities, and altering athletes’ hitting technique. RA muscle strain is a relatively infrequent, yet potentially severe, injury in elite volleyball players that necessitates early diagnosis and treatment to avoid prolonged or incomplete recovery.
Anna R. Cruz and Kenneth Mautner
Ece Acar, Tamer Çankaya and Serkan Öner
, physical function, and physical role difficulty scores were applied as subscale of short form-36. Thickness of trunk muscles was determined with anteroposterior (AP) diameter measurement using ultrasound imaging in upper rectus abdominis (URA), central rectus abdominis (CRA), lower rectus abdominis (LRA
Jinger S. Gottschall, Bryce Hastings and Zachary Becker
distance between the acromion and the olecranon); latissimus dorsi (4 cm below the inferior angle of the scapula at an oblique angle); rectus abdominis (vertically 2 cm lateral of the umbilicus); and erector spinae (vertically 2 cm lateral of the lumbar spine). We verified that the position of the
Kunal Bhanot, Navpreet Kaur, Lori Thein Brody, Jennifer Bridges, David C. Berry and Joshua J. Ode
Abbreviations: CAI, chronic ankle instability; LE, lower-extremity. The Biopac MP 36 System (Biopac Systems Inc, Santa Barbara, CA) was used to collect all the EMG data. 25 , 26 Surface EMG was collected from the erector spinae (ES), external oblique (EOB), and rectus abdominis (RA) bilaterally (ipsilateral
Ui-Jae Hwang, Sung-Hoon Jung, Hyun-A Kim, Jun-Hee Kim and Oh-Yun Kwon
include the transverse abdominal (TrA) and internal oblique (IO) muscles, whereas the external oblique and rectus abdominis (RA) muscles mainly contribute to lumbopelvic control (LC). 29 – 32 LC is generally considered to provide a foundation for lumbopelvic dynamic control; this allows for optimal
James W. Youdas, Hannah E. Baartman, Brian J. Gahlon, Tyler J. Kohnen, Robert J. Sparling and John H. Hollman
be directed to movement at its distal end. Trunk muscles such as the external oblique, internal oblique, rectus abdominis, and erector spinae provide spinal stabilization, so the prime mover muscles (pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, serratus anterior, and triceps brachii) can generate forceful arm
Billy Chun-Lung So, Calvin Hong-Nin Yuen, Ken Long-Hin Tung, Sheena Lam, Sammy Lan Cheng, Zina Wing-Lam Hung, Rainy Wai-Kwan Leung and Grace Pui-Yuk Szeto
collected from their right transversus abdominis (TrA), rectus abdominis (RA), lumbar multifidus (LM), and ES muscles, and videos were taken for motion analysis in synchronization to EMG signals. The DWR trials were conducted in a public swimming pool of 2 m deep with a water temperature of 27°C. The
Leila Ahmadnezhad, Ali Yalfani and Behnam Gholami Borujeni
disorder in the kinetic chain 14 were excluded from the study (Figure 2 ). Figure 2 Overhead squats. Procedure This study measured muscle activity in 4 muscles, including the erector spinae (ES), MF, TVA, and rectus abdominis (RA). To attach the electrodes, the participants were in standing and relaxed
Jeffrey M. Willardson, Fabio E. Fontana and Eadric Bressel
To compare core muscle activity during resistance exercises performed on stable ground vs. the BOSU Balance Trainer.
Twelve trained men performed the back squat, dead lift, overhead press, and curl lifts. The activity of the rectus abdominis, external oblique abdominis, transversus abdominis/internal oblique abdominis, and erector spinae muscles was assessed. Subjects performed each lift under three separate conditions including standing on stable ground with 50% of a 1-RM, standing on a BOSU Balance Trainer with 50% of a 1-RM, and standing on stable ground with 75% of a 1-RM.
Significant differences were noted between the stable 75% of 1-RM and BOSU 50% of 1-RM conditions for the rectus abdominis during the overhead press and transversus abdominis/internal oblique abdominis during the overhead press and curl (P < .05). Conversely, there were no significant differences between the stable 75% of 1-RM and BOSU 50% of 1-RM conditions for the external obliques and erector spinae across all lifts examined. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the BOSU 50% of 1-RM and stable 50% of 1-RM conditions across all muscles and lifts examined.
The current study did not demonstrate any advantage in utilizing the BOSU Balance Trainer. Therefore, fitness trainers should be advised that each of the aforementioned lifts can be performed while standing on stable ground without losing the potential core muscle training benefits.
Lindsay L. Musalem, Tatjana Stankovic, Drazen Glisic, Gillian E. Cook and Tyson A.C. Beach
The objective of this study was to investigate why holding times on 2 different tests of isometric trunk flexor endurance capacity (prone plank and v-sit) are weakly correlated. Body position and ground reaction force data from 10 men and 10 women were used to conduct static biomechanical analyses of both test postures, and bilateral activations of the rectus abdominis, internal and external obliques, latissimus dorsi, and lumbar and thoracic erector spinae were measured in a second sample of 15 men and 15 women while holding the test postures. No between-posture differences in net low back flexor moments were found (P = .111), but the lumbar spine was 28° more flexed in the v-sit than in the plank (P < .001). No between-posture differences were detected in the rectus abdominis (P = .397), external obliques (P = .204), internal obliques (P = .226), or lumbar erector spinae (P = .116) activation levels, but those of the thoracic erector spinae (P = .0253) and latissimus dorsi (P < .001) were greater in the plank than in the v-sit. Altogether, the findings suggest that differences between plank and v-sit holding times are most likely related to between-test differences in lumbar spine postures and shoulder demands.