【作者】 王颖；

【导师】 华立君；

【作者基本信息】 哈尔滨师范大学 ， 运动人体科学， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 研究目的:由于长时间低头伏案工作、错误的姿势习惯等因素,导致越来越多的人存在头前倾、圆肩驼背、肩胛骨耸起的不良体态,即上交叉综合征。本研究运用肌肉能量技术、悬吊训练、肌肉能量技术结合悬吊训练方法对患有上交叉综合征的大学生进行干预治疗,分析三组治疗前后各项测试指标的变化与差距,明确这三种训练方法各自的优劣势,探索一种既能缓解颈肩部疼痛,改善不良姿势、恢复正常生理曲度,又能减少复发率,有效的、科学的治疗方法。研究方法:通过问卷调查和姿势静态评估,筛选出45名符合实验纳入标准的学生,将其随机分为三组,每组15人,分别为肌肉能量技术组(MET组)、悬吊训练组(SET组)、肌肉能量技术结合悬吊训练组(结合组)。MET组进行放松紧张的肌肉和强化薄弱的肌肉训练;SET组进行肌肉放松训练、关节活动度训练和关节稳定性训练;结合组是两种方法都采用,共进行为期12周、每周3次的治疗。治疗前后测量颈部各个方向关节活动度、颈前倾角度(FHA)、圆肩角度(FSA)、FMS功能性动作筛查、VAS疼痛评分等相关数据,通过SPSS27.0、Excel等软件对测试数据进行比较分析与讨论。研究结果:1.治疗前,三组受试者的各项指标均没有显著性差异(P>0.05);治疗后,三组受试者各项指标均比治疗前有显著性差异(P<0.05)。2.在改善颈椎前屈和后伸关节活动度方面,MET组和结合组的疗效均优于SET组(P<0.05),且结合组与MET组之间无显著性差异(P>0.05);在改善颈椎侧屈和旋转方面,结合组的效果最显著,而MET组疗效优于SET组。3.在改善颈前倾角度(FHA)和FMS评分方面,结合组的疗效最显著(P<0.01),SET组的疗效优于MET组(P<0.05)。4.在改善圆肩角度(FSA)和VAS疼痛评分方面,结合组与MET组的疗效均优于SET组,且结合组与MET组无显著性差异(P>0.05)。研究结论:1.经过12周的干预治疗后,MET和SET均可以增加颈椎的关节活动范围,加强颈部功能,改善颈前倾和圆肩驼背的姿势,缓解颈肩部疼痛,而MET和SET联合应用的效果较单一技术的治疗效果更为显著。2.MET和SET这两种方法各有优劣,其中MET擅于改善紧张肌肉的张力,增加颈椎关节活动范围,改善圆肩姿势,缓解疼痛;SET擅于加强颈深层肌肉力量,改善颈前倾姿势,还可以加强躯干深层核心肌群力量,强化整体功能水平,提高运动表现能力。3.应用MET结合SET纠正上交叉综合征,不仅解决了颈肩部的局部问题,还从躯干整体结构方面进行了优化,因此用此治疗方案纠正上交叉综合征效果更加显著。更多还原

【Abstract】 Research Objectives:Due to the factors such as long time of working at the desk,wrong posture habits and so on,more and more people have the bad posture of head leaning forward,round-shouldered hunchback,and shoulder blade bulging,that is,superior crossing syndrome.This study uses muscle energy technology,suspension training,muscle energy technology and suspension training methods to intervene and treat college students with upper crossing syndrome,analyzes the changes and differences of various test indicators before and after treatment in the three groups,clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of these three training methods,and explores a method that can not only alleviate neck and shoulder pain,but also improve bad posture and restore normal physiological curvature,Scientific and effective treatment with low recurrence rate.Research Methods: Through questionnaire survey and posture evaluation,45 students who met the inclusion criteria of the experiment were selected and randomly divided into three groups,15 people in each group,namely,muscle energy technology group(MET group),suspension training group(SET group),muscle energy technology combined with suspension training group(combination group).The MET group relaxed the tense muscles and strengthened the weak muscles;SET group received muscle relaxation training,joint activity training and joint stability training;The combination group was treated with both methods for 12 weeks and 3 times a week.Before and after treatment,the range of motion of the joints in all directions of the neck,the forward inclination angle of the neck(FHA),the round shoulder angle(FSA),the FMS functional action screening,the VAS pain score and other related data were measured,and the test data were compared,analyzed and discussed through SPSS27.0,Excel and other software.Research results:1.There was no significant difference in all indicators of the three groups of experimental subjects before treatment(P>0.05).After treatment,there was significant difference in all indicators of each group compared with before treatment(P<0.05).2.In terms of improving the range of motion of cervical flexion and extension joints,the efficacy of MET group and combination group was better than SET group(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference between combination group and MET group(P>0.05);In terms of improving cervical lateral flexion and rotation,the combined group has the most significant effect,while the MET group is better than the SET group.3.In terms of improving the cervical anteversion angle and FMS score,thecombined group had the most significant effect(P<0.01),and the SET group wasbetter than the MET group(P<0.05).4.In terms of improving the round shoulder angle and VAS pain score,the efficacy of combination group and MET group was better than SET group,and there was no significant difference between combination group and MET group(P>0.05).Research conclusion:1.After 12 weeks of intervention treatment,both MET and SET can increase the range of motion of the cervical joint,strengthen the neck function,improve the posture of the neck leaning forward and round-shoulder hunchback,and relieve the neck and shoulder pain.The combined effect of MET and SET is more significant than that of single technology.2.MET and SET have their respective advantages and disadvantages,MET is good at improving the tension of tense muscles,increasing the range of motion of cervical joints,improving the round-shoulder posture,and alleviating pain.SET is good at strengthening the deep muscle strength of the neck and improving the forward posture of the neck;It can also strengthen the strength of the deep core muscles of the trunk,strengthen the overall functional level,and improve the performance of sports.3.The application of MET and SET to correct the upper crossing syndrome not only solves the local problems of the neck and shoulder,but also optimizes the overall structure of the trunk,so the effect of correcting the upper crossing syndrome with this treatment scheme is more significant.更多还原