Elsevier

Physical Therapy in Sport

Volume 23, January 2017, Pages 86-92
Physical Therapy in Sport

Original Research
Serratus anterior and trapezius muscle activity during knee push-up plus and knee-plus exercises performed on a stable, an unstable surface and during sling-suspension

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.08.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The knee-plus was found to be just as effective in activating the SA muscle as the knee push-up plus exercise.

  • The knee-plus may be favored when the goal is isolated SA activity and low UT activity at the same time.

  • Unstable bases of support did not elicit greater SA muscle activity compared to stable conditions.

Abstract

Objectives

Push-up plus variations are commonly prescribed to clients during shoulder rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to compare electromyographic (EMG) activities of the serratus anterior (SA), upper (UT), and lower trapezius (LT) during a knee push-up plus and knee-plus exercise performed on various surfaces.

Study design

Within-subjects Repeated-Measure Design.

Participants

19 healthy, young female participants performed both exercises on a stable and unstable surface and during sling-suspension.

Outcome measures

Surface EMG activities were recorded and average amplitudes were presented as a percentage of the maximal voluntary contraction. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to determine differences in activity for each muscle.

Results

SA showed no significant differences between exercises and was independent of the base of support (p > 0.05). Muscle activity of UT (95% CI [1.2, 1.4]) and LT (95% CI [2.4, 3.5]) showed slightly greater values when performing the knee push-up plus compared to the knee-plus exercise.

Conclusions

The isolated protraction of the shoulder girdle in a kneeling position is as sufficient as the push-up plus in activating the SA selectively. Therefore, we recommended this exercise for clients who are unable to perform an entire push-up or should avoid detrimental stress on the shoulder joint.

Introduction

Shoulder pain affects one-third of adults during their life span (Chard et al., 1991, Walker-Bone et al., 2004, van der Heijden, 1999). Symptoms can be persistent and disabling, thereby increasing demands on health and thus increasing economic costs involved (Jeong et al., 2014, Miranda et al., 2008).

Shoulder impingement syndrome, shoulder tendonitis and glenohumeral instability are among the most common causes of shoulder pain and disabilities (Linaker & Walker-Bone, 2015), particularly in occupations or sports that require constant elevation of the arm above the head (Harkness et al., 2003, Miranda et al., 2008, Yanai et al., 2000). Safe and effective elevation of the arm via shoulder abduction and elevation, requires the coracoid process to move in a posterior and cranial direction while the inferior angle of the scapula moves anteriorly and caudally (Clarkson, 2005). This movement, termed scapular posterior tilt, is primarily controlled via the serratus anterior (SA) and the fibers of the lower (LT) and upper (UT) trapezius muscles (Norkin & Levangie, 1992). Impairments to the SA such as muscle imbalance or weakness often result in altered scapula positioning, scapulothoracic- and humeral motion, and muscle activation patterns (Ludewig & Reynolds, 2009), which increases the risk of developing shoulder impingement, glenohumeral instability, pain, or other such musculoskeletal disorders.

When clinicians identify impaired scapula kinematics, their primary goal (during rehabilitation) is the training of the scapular stabilizing muscles, in particular the SA and the LT (Ludewig and Reynolds, 2009, Pirauá et al., 2014). Typically, clinicians utilize the push-up, push-up plus and other push-up variations for retraining SA, LT and UT muscles. As measured via electromyography (EMG), these exercises facilitate motor recruitment within the scapulothoracic muscles (Herrington et al., 2015, Kim et al., 2014, Pirauá et al., 2014). Within these push-up variations, researchers demonstrated that SA activity is greater in push-up plus exercises compared to the regular push-up (Ludewig et al., 2004, Park and Yoo, 2011). It is theorized that the additional plus movement during the push-up plus, which involves posterior translation of the thorax while maintaining a relatively fixed position of the scapula, serves to further increase SA activity beyond that of the regular push-up (Hardwick, Beebe, McDonnell, & Lang, 2006).

To further increase muscle activity during exercising, clinicians commonly instruct their clients to perform the exercises on an unstable base of support. The current literature suggests that push-ups on an unstable base of support (e.g. foam mats, wobble-boards, Swiss ball based exercises or sling-suspension), requires greater activity of the proximal muscles to stabilize a joint and to maintain center of mass control (Maeo, Chou, Yamamoto, & Kanehisa, 2014). However, results reported in the literature, especially for the proximal shoulder stabilizers, are still conflicting and inconsistent as other researchers found no differences in muscle activities of scapula-stabilizing muscles when using an unstable base of support (Jeong et al., 2014, Kim et al., 2014, Lehman et al., 2008, Sandhu et al., 2008). One reason might be differences in methodology and muscle groups analyzed.

Push-ups and their variations are typically performed in a prone position, termed ‘prone bridging’, with the hands and feet acting as the base of support. This position requires a certain level of strength in the upper extremity in addition to well-developed trunk stability. Females, however, often have difficulty performing the push-ups correctly due to gender differences in strength and other muscle characteristics (Miller, MacDougall, Tarnopolsky, & Sale, 1993). To overcome this issue clinicians often recommend female clients to perform the push-up from a kneeling position to reduce the exercises' physical demand by decreasing the long moment arms (Baechle & Roger, 2008). Additionally, the physical demand can be further reduced by performing the plus movement independently from the push-up, termed plus or knee-plus exercise. For clinicians it is very important to understand differences in muscle activation patterns between these exercise variations. This enables the clinician to select the best-suited exercise variation tailored to the needs of their clients. Currently however, there is still a lack of literature that analyzes the muscle activity of the SA and trapezius during knee push-up plus and isolated knee-plus exercises. Furthermore, the current literature is limited to mostly male participants with conflicting results on the effects of unstable bases of support.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare SA and trapezius muscle activity during knee push-up plus and knee-plus exercises during a stable and unstable base of support as well as during sling suspension in healthy female participants. In line with these goals, the following two hypotheses were developed. H1: The knee push-up plus, compared to the knee-plus, will not exhibit any differences in muscle activity for the SA. H2: An unstable base of support will elicit increased muscle activity during both exercise conditions for SA, LT, and UT.

This study will help extend the still controversial results from current research regarding the effect of push-up variations as well as different unstable bases of support or sling-suspension on muscle activity of the SA specifically for the female population. Acquired data will support clinicians as a rationale for developing exercise programs tailored to the needs of their clients.

Section snippets

Sample size estimation

Sample size estimation providing 80% power to detect a small to moderate effect size (partial η2 = 0.15) for a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA and assuming no correlation among repeated measures (as a rather conservative situation with respect to necessary sample size) and assuming sphericity, revealed that 12 participants would be sufficient. Sample size was estimated using G*Power 3.1.

Participants

In total 19 healthy, physically active female participants volunteered to take part in this study (age: 23 ± 3

Results

The CV grand mean was 10.9% ± 2.1 for all participants and test conditions. Mean CVs per participant ranged from 6.5% to 14.0%.

No significant interaction (p < 0.05) between exercise type × base of support for SA, UT, and LT were found. For SA activity (Fig. 3), no additional main effects for exercise type and base of support were observed.

However, the UT (Fig. 4) showed a significant main effect of exercise type (F(1, 18) = 25.042, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.582). Muscle activity showed slightly greater

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to compare EMG activity levels of the SA, UT, and LT activity in a young and healthy female population during knee push-up plus and knee-plus exercises performed on a stable and two unstable bases of support (foam mat and sling suspension). Our first hypothesis was that the knee push-up plus, compared to the knee-plus, would not exhibit any differences in muscle activity for the SA. The second hypothesis was that an unstable base of support would elicit

Conclusion

Consistent with our hypothesis, no differences in SA activity were observed between the push-up plus and the plus-movement from a kneeling position. Based on the results obtained in this study, it can be concluded that the plus movement in a kneeling position is as sufficient as the push-up plus exercise in activating the SA. Additionally, results from this study indicate that for the purpose of SA rehabilitation, the selected unstable base of support did not elicit differences in muscle

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

Authors declare that procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national). Participants provided oral and written informed consent and signed a university approved informed consent form prior to the study, to protect all associated rights.

Funding information

Authors received no funding for this study.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully would like to thank all participants who took part in this study as well as PD Dr. Tanja Stamm, PhD, MSc, MBA, Daniel Heinzl and Iris Ciganek for their great assistance in writing this manuscript.

References (29)

  • K. Walker-Bone et al.

    The anatomical pattern and determinants of pain in the neck and upper limbs: An epidemiologic study

    Pain

    (2004)
  • G. Atkinson et al.

    Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine

    Sports medicine

    (1998)
  • T.R. Baechle et al.

    Essentials of strength training and conditioning

    (2008)
  • G. Borg

    Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales

    (1998)
  • Cited by (11)

    • EMG activity of the serratus anterior and trapezius muscles during elevation and PUSH UP exercises

      2021, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies
      Citation Excerpt :

      Furthermore, adding load is a common way to progress the exercise program, but so far, there is little evidence of the effect on muscular pattern (Castelein et al., 2016; Reed et al., 2016). Pu and Push-up Plus (PuP) seem to have an effect on activation T and Sa muscles, while Sa has a significant higher recruitment with PuP (Gioftsos et al., 2016; Horsak et al., 2017; Lehman et al., 2008; Park and Yoo, 2011). The benefit of using unstable surfaces is also debatable, with some studies showing a beneficial effect on recruitment (Kim et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Torres et al., 2017), while others do not (Gioftsos et al., 2016; Kalantari and Ardestani, 2014; Lehman et al., 2008).

    • Use of unstable exercises in periscapular muscle activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of electromyographic studies

      2021, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies
      Citation Excerpt :

      These findings suggest that there is no advantage in inserting instability in closed kinetic chain tasks with unilateral support to increase AS activity. In addition, it is important to note that in several studies (Batista et al., 2013; Gioftsos et al., 2016; Horsak et al., 2016. ; Karagiannakis et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2011, 2014; Lehman et al., 2008; Maenhout et al., 2010; Park and Yoo, 2011; Pontillo et al., 2007; Tucker et al., 2010; Yoon and Lee, 2013) the unstable surface was inserted in the support of the upper limbs without taking care to correct the support of the lower limbs.

    • Shoulder muscle activation during scapular protraction exercise with arm rotation

      2022, Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text