Table 1. Summary of the characteristics and results of the selected studies.
| Author (year) | Participants (Age; height; weight) | Exercises | Support surface (support device) | Scapular muscles evaluated | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biscarini, Contemori & Grolla (2019) | n = 18 (11 M, 7 F; 21-52 y; 159–187 cm; 51-86 kg) | Plank | Stable (Floor) | MT, SA | The use of unstable surfaces significantly increased the EMG activity of SA muscle |
| Unstable (Wobble board) | |||||
| Borreani et al. (2015a); Borreani et al. (2015b) | n = 29 M (23.5 ± 3.1 y; 178.2 ± 5.9 cm; 75.2 ± 8.5 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT | The use of unstable surfaces significantly increased the EMG activity of UT muscle |
| Half push-up | Unstable (Suspension) | ||||
| Borreani et al. (2015a); Borreani et al. (2015b) | n = 30 M (23 ± 1.13 y; 178.87 ± 8.21 cm; 78.01 ± 8.5 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | SA | The use of unstable surfaces such as stability disc, fitness dome, and wobble board significantly increased the EMG activity of the SA. |
| Unstable (Stability Disc; Wobble Board; BOSU ball; Suspension equipment) | Suspension only increased trunk EMG activity | ||||
| Byrne et al. (2014) | n = 21 (10 M, 11 F; 21.9 ± 2.4 y; 175.5 ± 10.13 cm; 74.2 ± 12.61 kg) | Plank | Stable (Floor) | SA | There were no statistically significant differences between stable and unstable surface. |
| Unstable (Suspension equipment) | Post hoc analysis revealed that foot suspension generated greater SA EMG activation than arm suspension. | ||||
| Calatayud et al. (2014a); Calatayud et al. (2014b) | n = 29 M (22.6 ± 2.6 y; 176.0 ± 4.4 cm; 74.6 ± 6.7 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | There were no differences in UT EMG activity between stable and unstable surfaces. |
| Half Push-up | Unstable (Suspension equipment) | The use of unstable surfaces decreased the EMG activity of SA muscle | |||
| Calatayud et al. (2014a); Calatayud et al. (2014b) | n = 29 M (23.5 ± 3.1 y; 178.2 ± 5.9 cm; 75.2 ± 8.5 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT | The use of unstable surfaces significantly increased the EMG activity of UT |
| Unstable (Suspension equipment) | |||||
| De Araújo et al. (2011) | n = 20 M (22 ± 3 y; 175 ± 5 cm; 68 ± 7 kg) | One arm isometric | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences between the stable and unstable surface for any of the evaluated muscles |
| Unstable (Therapeutic Ball) | |||||
| De Araújo et al. (2018) | n = 18 M (21.50 ± 2.65 years; 173 ± 3 cm; 74.9 ± 2.69 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surfaces significantly increased the EMG activity of UT and SA muscles. |
| Unstable (Wobble board) | |||||
| De Araújo et al. (2020) | n = 23 M (21.74 ± 3 y; 175 ± 6 cm; 71.20 ± 7.79 kg) | Push-up plus | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surfaces (BOSU ball) increased the EMG activity of SA. No significant differences were observed for the UT muscle. |
| Unstable (BOSU ball) | |||||
| De Mey et al. (2014) | n = 47 (26 M, 21 F; 22 ± 4.31 y; 176 ± 8.3 cm; 69 ± 8.57 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Bar) | UT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surfaces increased the EMG activity of UT in Push-up. No significant differences were observed for the SA muscle. |
| Scap protraction | Unstable (Suspension equipment) | The use of unstable surfaces decreased the EMG activity of SA in scap protraction. | |||
| De Faria et al. (2021) | n = 14 M (24.57 ± 4.30 y; 176 ± 6 cm; 82.79 ± 9.04 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences between the stable and unstable surface for any of the evaluated muscles. |
| Unstable (Wobble Board) | |||||
| Gioftsos et al. (2016) | n = 13 M (20.5 ± 1.0 y; 178.8 ± 7.2 cm; 79.2 ± 12.3 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences between the stable and unstable surface for any of the evaluated muscles. |
| Scap protraction | Unstable (Wobble Board) | ||||
| Push-up plus | |||||
| Herrington, Waterman & Smith (2015) | n = 21 (10 M, 11 F; 22.8 ± 1.4 y) | Plank | Stable (Floor) | SA | The use of the foam surface decreased the EMG activity of SA during the one hand isometric exercise. |
| One arm isometric | Unstable (Therapeutic Ball, Foam) | No significant differences were observed in the EMG activity of the SA muscle on unstable surfaces during a plank exercise. | |||
| Horsak et al. (2017) | n = 19 F (23 ± 3 y; 167 ± 6 cm; 60 ± 6 kg) | Scap protraction | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences in periscapular EMG activity when comparing between stable and unstable support surface |
| Push-up plus | Unstable (Suspension equipment) | ||||
| Karagiannakis, Athanasopoulos & Mandalidis (2018) | n = 15 F (24.0 ± 5.2 y; 172.5 ± 5.5 cm; 65.6 ± 5.1) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | No interaction was observed between group, dominance, or type of surface. Periscapular EMG activity was not influenced by unstable surfaces |
| Unstable (BOSU ball) | |||||
| Kim et al. (2014) | n = 15 M (23.27 ± 1.28 y; 174.27 ± 3.51 cm; 67.33 ± 4.76 kg) | Knee Push-up plus | Stable (Floor) | SA | There were no statistically significant differences in SA EMG activity between stable and unstable surface. |
| Unstable (BOSU ball) | |||||
| Kim & Yoo (2019) | n = 11 M (22 ± 1.9 y; 174.57 ± 4.32 cm; 62.2 ± 4.7 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | LT | There were no statistically significant differences in LT EMG activity between stable and unstable surface. |
| Scap protraction | Unstable (Wobble Board) | ||||
| Lee, Lee & Park (2013) | Unstable group:n = 10 M (23.7 ± 1.21 y; 175.16 ± 4.42 cm, 73.01 ± 8.67 kg) | Push-up plus | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surfaces increased the EMG activity of the SA muscle. |
| Stable group:n = 10 M (23.3 ± 1.45 y, 174.27 ± 3.29 cm, 74.41 ± 7.49 kg) | Unstable (Suspension equipment) | There were no statistically significant differences in EMG activity of UT and LT between stable and unstable surface. | |||
| Lehman, Gilas & Patel (2008) | n = 10 M (26.3 ± 1.1 y; 83.3 ± 10.9; 174.7 ± 12.9 cm) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences between stable and unstable support surface for any of the scapular muscles evaluated during push-up and scap protraction exercises |
| Scap protraction | Unstable (Therapeutic ball) | ||||
| Maenhout et al. (2010) | n = 32 (16 M, 16 F; 22,88 ± 2,43 y; 173 ± 9 cm; 65,59 ± 8,14 kg) | Knee Push-up plus | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surface (wobble board) decreased the EMG activity of SA. |
| Unstable (Wobble board) | |||||
| Martins et al. (2008) | n = 12 M (175 ± 54 cm; 22.8 ± 3.1 y; 68.7 ± 7.9 kg) | One arm isometric | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | No significant differences were observed in the EMG activity of UT or SA when using unstable support surfaces. |
| Unstable (Therapeutic ball) | |||||
| Park & Yoo (2013) | n = 16 M (26 y; 176.1 ± 5.4 cm; 64.6 ± 4.9 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | There was an increase in muscle activity of all scapular muscles when using the unstable support surface. |
| Unstable (Wobble Board) | |||||
| Park & Yoo (2013) | n = 14 M (22 ± 2 y; 174.6 ± 57 cm; 62.2 ± 4.8 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | The use of unstable surface (wobble board) increased the EMG activity of UT and SA. |
| Unstable (Wobble board) | |||||
| Patselas et al. (2021) | n = 13 M (21.1 ± 1.8 y; 180 ± 4 cm; 79 ± 12kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences between stable and unstable support surface for any of the scapular muscles evaluated. |
| Push-up plus | Unstable (Wobble board) | ||||
| Sandhu, Mahajan & Shenoy (2008) | n = 35 M (20-30 y; 173.65 ± 256 cm; 69.9 ± 0.2 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, SA | There were no statistically significant differences between stable and unstable support surface for any of the scapular muscles evaluated. |
| Knee Push-up | Unstable (Therapeutic ball) | ||||
| Plank | |||||
| Seo et al. (2013) | n = 10 M (24.6 y; 176.2 ± 3.67 cm; 75.7 ± 5.16 kg) | Half Push-up | Stable (Chair) | UT, MT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surface (therapeutic ball) increased the EMG activity of UT, MT, LT and SA during half and knee push-up performance. |
| Knee Push-up | Unstable (Therapeutic ball) | ||||
| Pirauá et al. (2014) | n = 30 M (21.7 ± 2.5 y; 70.5 ± 9 kg; 173 ± 1 cm) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, LT, SA | The use of unstable surface (wobble board) increased the EMG activity of UT and LT and decreases the EMG activity of SA. |
| Unstable (Wobble board) | |||||
| Tucker et al. (2010) | Healthy Group: n = 15 (11 M, 4 F; 21.0 ± 2.5 y; 176.0 ± 7.8 cm; 76.1 ± 13.4 15 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | UT, MT, LT, SA | The use of BOSU ball increased the EMG activity of UT, MT and LT muscles and decreased the EMG activity of SA. |
| Impingement Group: n = 15 (11 M-4 F; 20.4 ± 3.8 y; 174.1 ± 9.7 cm; 73.3 ± 11.7 kg) | Unstable (BOSU ball, Cufflink) | The use of cufflink decreased the EMG activity of the UT, MT, LT muscle and increased the EMG activity of SA. | |||
| Youdas et al. (2020a); Youdas et al. (2020b) | n = 22 M (24.6 ± 3.2 y, 180 ± 10 cm; 87.9 ± 9.3 kg) | Push-up | Stable (Floor) | SA | SA recruitment decreased during a push-up with performance on suspension equipment and dual instability devices compared to the standard push-up. |
| n = 10 F (23.6 ± 1.4 y; 160 ± 10 cm; 60 ± 4.2 kg) | Unstable (BOSU ball, Suspension equipment) | ||||
| Youdas et al. (2018) | n = 13 M (25.4 ± 5.7 y; 190 ± 10 cm; 89.6 ± 6 kg) | Plank | Stable (Floor) | SA | A high activation of SA was observed during the prone plank on floor and on therapeutic ball. There were no statistically significant differences between both conditions. |
| n = 13 F (25 ± 3.8 y; 170 ± 10 cm; 63.5 ± 7.3 kg) | Unstable (Therapeutic ball) |
Notes.
- M
- male
- F
- female
- y
- years
- UT
- upper trapezius muscle
- MT
- middle trapezius muscle
- LT
- lower trapezius muscle
- SA
- serratus anterior muscle