J. Phys. Ther. Sci.

28: 3030–3035, 2016

The Journal of Physical Therapy Science

Original Article
Pilot study of effective methods for measuring
and stretching for pectoral muscle tightness in
breast cancer patients

So Young Lee, MD1)a, Mi Kyung Sim, MD2)a, Junghwa Do, PT, MSc3),
Soon Young Jeong, PT, PhD3), Jae Yong Jeon, MD, PhD3)*
1) Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University
School of Medicine, Republic of Korea
2) Ilsan Median Rehabilitation Hospital, Republic of Korea
3) Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of

Medicine: 88 Olympic-ro, 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea

Abstract. [Purpose] To evaluate differences in pectoral muscle tightness according to arm abduction angle and
to determine the best arm abduction angle for stretching of pectoral muscle tightness in breast cancer patients.
[Subjects and Methods] Horizontal abduction differences of shoulders were measured bilaterally by arm abduction
to 45°, 90°, and 135° to determine the best arm abduction angle for measuring pectoral muscle tightness. Thirty-two
patients were divided into three pectoral muscle stretching groups (A: 45°, B: 90°, and C: 135°). We measured the
shoulder range of motion, scores of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Breast Module, and pain levels (using a
visual analog scale) before and after therapy. [Results] The differences in degree of horizontal abduction between
shoulders were significantly larger for arm abduction to 90° and 135° than that to 45°. Groups B and C showed
greater improvements in horizontal abduction limitations than group A. [Conclusion] Horizontal abduction differ-
ences between shoulders are prominent when arms are abducted to 90° and 135°. The appropriate arm abduction
angle for measuring horizontal abduction and effective stretching of pectoral muscle tightness may be >90°.
Key words: Breast neoplasms, Muscle stretching exercise, Rehabilitation
(This article was submitted May 4, 2016, and was accepted Jul. 19, 2016)

INTRODUCTION
Breast cancer has become the most frequently diagnosed malignant tumor among women worldwide, and the number
of women with breast cancer is increasing1). The increase in breast cancer incidence and improvements in breast cancer
survival observed globally2) have created the need to improve physical treatment outcomes and quality of life. Although more
selective and less-invasive surgical approaches are now used, complications after treatment remain, and these may interfere
with daily activities and quality of life. Therefore, rehabilitation programs related to breast cancer treatment have recently
gained more attention.
After breast cancer surgery, patients suffer from upper-extremity dysfunction, including pectoral muscle tightness
(PMT)3–6). In other studies, PMT was defined as the presence of a limitation of forward flexion of>10°, with no limitation
of external rotation, and limited horizontal abduction of >10°5, 7). The prevalence of PMT in one study was 6.3%, 2.3%,
and 8.7% at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively, and it was higher in patients who underwent mastectomy or
radiotherapy5). Postoperative muscle thickening, contraction, and radiation-induced fibrosis may be related to PMT. Patients’

*Corresponding author. Jae Yong Jeon (E-mail: jyjeon71@gmail.com) aCo-first authors who contributed equally to this work.
©2016 The Society of Physical Therapy Science. Published by IPEC Inc.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd)
License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/>.
efforts to protect their surgical sites through thoracic flexion and scapular protraction may aggravate pectoral muscle shorten-
ing8–10).
Sustained PMT after breast cancer treatment may pull the scapula into a protracted and depressed position. It may also
lead to other upper-extremity dysfunction, such as myofascial pain syndrome and rotator-cuff disease. These impairments can
impact activities of daily living and health-related quality of life11–13). Several studies have called for prophylactic exercises
to decrease the incidence of upper-quadrant morbidity14–16). Stretching is advocated following breast cancer surgery. How-
ever, the stretching protocols do not appear to be particularly effective. Little detail about the actual exercises performed in
randomized controlled trials has been published17). Most patients with PMT seem to stretch in ineffective ways, such as via
insufficient arm abduction.
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate differences in horizontal abduction according to arm abduction angle to
identify an effective method for diagnosing PMT. The second aim was to determine effective stretching methods for PMT,
focusing on arm abduction angle. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine the most effective angle for PMT
stretching in breast cancer patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients were included in the study if they fulfilled the following criteria: had undergone breast cancer surgery; had been
diagnosed with PMT; could attend our institute for treatment and follow-up; and could understand Korean and consent to
participate. Patients scheduled for adjuvant treatments, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, or breast reconstruction,
were excluded. Patients were excluded if they had undergone bilateral operations, presented with infection at baseline, or
had metastatic disease. In addition, patients were excluded if they had sustained a fracture, undergone surgery of the upper
extremities, or suffered any neurological deficit or other injury to either upper extremity. Lastly, patients were excluded if
they had axillary web syndrome. Axillary web syndrome was diagnosed on the basis of the presence of taut, palpable cords
originating in the axilla and extending distally along the anterior surface of the arm, often below the elbow18–20). This study
was exempted from institutional review board (IRB) review requirements according to the guidelines of the Asan Medical
Center (IRB no. S-2014-0599-0001). All subjects provided written informed consent before enrollment.
Shoulder range of motion, including horizontal abduction, was measured with a goniometer in all patients by a phys-
iotherapist. Before grouping patients, the shoulder horizontal abduction was measured with the arm abducted to 45°, 90°,
and 135°. Differences in horizontal abduction angles between shoulders were compared according to arm abduction angles.
Patients were then randomly divided into three groups. Prior to randomization, the sample was stratified by whether the
patients underwent axillary lymph-node resection or sentinel-node biopsy and whether they underwent a breast-conserving
surgery or modified radical mastectomy. Group A patients stretched the pectoral muscle by abducting their arms to 45°, group
B patients abducted their arms to 90°, and group C patients abducted their arms to 135°. The stretching exercise program
consisted of gentle shoulder range of motion exercises, including pectoral muscle stretching. Patients stretched their pectoral
muscle using a T-bar in a supine position, with trunk rotation toward the affected side. While standing, they stretched the
pectoral muscle in the corner of the room. Each stretch position was held for up to 15 s, and performed 5–10 times per
session, during three sessions per day. The stretching exercise program lasted 4 weeks. Patients attended twice a week, and
each week the exercises were modified as required. At the conclusion of the program, patients were encouraged to continue
the exercises at home.
At baseline, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), affected side, type of surgery, time since surgery, and method of lymph-
node dissection were recorded. The primary outcome measurement was shoulder range of motion, particularly horizontal
abduction difference. The secondary outcome measurements were pain, symptoms related to the upper extremity, the ability
to perform common activities of daily living, and quality of life. All measurements were recorded before and at the end of
the treatment.
Pain related to the upper extremity was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS). VAS is an instrument that measures
a characteristic or attitude that is believed to range across a continuum of values. For pain intensity, the scale is most com-
monly anchored by “no pain” (score of 0) and “pain as bad as it could be” or “worst imaginable pain” (score of 100 [100-mm
scale])21).
The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH)22, 23) instrument was employed to assess symptoms and func-
tional status, with a focus on physical function associated with different degrees of disability in the upper extremity. It
consists of 30 items about different upper-extremity disabilities and assesses symptoms, physical functions, social functions,
and psychological problems, each of which has five possible responses. The DASH ranges from 0–100, where a higher score
is a sign of greater upper-extremity disability24). The Korean version of the DASH has been validated22).
Quality of life was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life
Questionnaire, Version 3 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Breast Module (EORTC QLQ-BR23)25–27). These surveys are specific
to cancer patients and include a global health status/quality of life scale, as well as functional and symptom scales. The
EORTC QLQ-C30 includes 30 items, most of which have four response levels (not at all, a little, quite a bit, and very much).
It includes two questions that address overall health, with seven possible responses (on a scale from very poor to excellent).
The EORTC QLQ-BR23 is a breast cancer module of the EORTC QLQ and is considered to be more sensitive and responsive

3031
to the functions and symptoms associated with breast cancer. These questionnaires are reliable, valid, sensitive to change, and
able to distinguish between patients in different disease stages, and with different performance statuses. The Korean versions
of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 have been validated26, 27).
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 20.0 (IBM-SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The mean and stan-
dard deviation (SD) of demographic and other descriptive variables were calculated. Friedman tests were used to determine
whether arm abduction angle was effective for measuring differences in shoulder horizontal abduction. Analysis of variance
and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences in changes in shoulder range of motion, DASH, pain score, and
factors related to quality of life among the three groups. Statistical significance was assessed using p-value of <0.05.

RESULTS
At baseline, there were no significant differences in age (years), BMI (kg/m2), time since surgery (months), affected
side, type of surgery, or method of lymph-node dissection between the three groups (Table 1). The mean (± SD) age (years)
was 48.5 ± 6.0, 46.2 ± 6.1, and 44.6 ± 7.5 in groups A, B, and C, respectively. At baseline, the horizontal abduction degree
between shoulders differed according to arm abduction angle.
The difference in shoulder horizontal abduction was significantly larger when arms were abducted to 90° or 135° com-
pared with 45° (p=0.023). The mean difference in shoulder horizontal abduction was 14.7 ± 10.5° with the arm abducted to
45°, 22.9 ± 10.1° with the arm abducted to 90°, and 20.3 ± 10.0° with the arm abducted to 135° (Table 2).
There were no significant differences among the three groups in the shoulder range of motion except for the horizontal
abduction at baseline and after therapy. Significant differences were found among the three groups for the primary outcome
(changes in shoulder horizontal abduction after the stretching program). The changes in shoulder horizontal degree were 10.0
± 7.8° in group A, 25.7 ± 27.1° in group B, and 23.3 ± 10.8° in group C. The changes in shoulder horizontal abduction were
larger in groups B and C than in group A.
There were no statistically significant differences between the changes in the VAS and DASH scores among the three
groups. No differences were found among groups for the items reported on the EORTC QLQ-BR23. Similarly, there were no
significant differences in the sub-item scores of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 (Table 3).

DISCUSSION
The findings of the present study suggest that when measuring shoulder horizontal abduction for diagnosing PMT, an arm
abduction angle of >90° is more effective. When the arm was abducted to 90° and 135°, the difference in shoulder horizontal
abduction between shoulders in breast cancer patients was more prominent than when the arm was abducted to 45°. When
the arm was abducted to 45°, the pectoral muscle could not be sufficiently elongated. A shorter pectoral muscle seems to be
unsuitable for measuring PMT.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study patients

Group A (n=11) Group B (n=11) Group C (n=10)

Age (years) 48.5 (6.0) 46.2 (6.1) 44.6 (7.5)
BMI (kg/m 2) 22.8 (1.8) 23.5 (2.6) 21.6 (2.7)
Time from surgery (months) 7.9 (5.5) 6.9 (3.8) 5.7 (4.4)
Affected site (dominant hand side:non-dominant side) 6:5 5:6 3:7
Type of surgery (BCO:MRM:other) 5:5:1 5:4:2 4:5:1
Values are expressed as mean (SD) or number.
BMI: body mass index; BCO: breast-conserving operation; MRM: modified radical mastectomy

Table 2. Differences in horizontal abduction between shoulders according to

the arm abduction angle when measuring PMT

Differences in horizontal abduction between shoulders

45° arm abduction* 14.7 (10.5)
90° arm abduction 22.9 (10.1)†
135° arm abduction 20.3 (10.0)†
Values are expressed as mean (SD).
*p<0.05 by Friedman test.
† p<0.025 by Bonferroni correction, compared with a 45° arm abduction.

3032 J. Phys. Ther. Sci. Vol. 28, No. 11, 2016

 In addition, when stretching to alleviate PMT, an arm abduction angle >90° may be more effective. The primary outcome
of this study—shoulder horizontal abduction limitation—was improved in groups B and C. Although, group A patients also
showed improvement in shoulder horizontal abduction, group B and C patients showed greater improvement in this regard.
This implies that our 4-week stretching program was effective for improving PMT in breast cancer patients. Moreover,
stretching was much more effective when patients stretched the pectoral muscle with the arm abducted to >90°.
In clinical trials, the effects of postoperative physical therapy programs, such as passive mobilization, manual stretch-
ing, and strengthening exercises were investigated. Many studies found that exercise program were more effective than no
therapy15), information about exercise28–30) or home exercise programs31) for the treatment of pain and impairment of the
upper extremity. However, few studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of using a stretching exercise
program. Only one study, by Lee et al.32) investigated the effects of a pectoral stretching exercise program. The stretching
program consisted of low-load, prolonged, passive stretching exercises for the pectoral muscles. The arm was positioned at
90° and 135°abduction and was held in an externally rotated position with a 2-kg weight. Each stretch position was held for
up to 10 min, twice a day. However, this study found that the pectoral stretching program had not beneficial effects after a
7-month follow-up. The lack of a positive effect is probably related to the fact that many patients did not undergo an axillary
dissection or a mastectomy, and radiotherapy of the axilla, which resulted in a decrease in the upper-extremity impairments.
A large proportion of the control group exercised during radiotherapy, performing the exercise routines as shown on the
postoperative pamphlets, as well as general exercises such as swimming and yoga. However, in our study, the 4-week
stretching program was effective for improving PMT in breast cancer patients. Explanations for the different effects in our
study compared with the previous study, included differences in content, duration of treatment, and patient characteristics.
Therefore, the effects of stretching on breast cancer patients requires further study with a larger sample and with different
methods and treatment durations.
There were no significant differences in pain scores, upper-extremity symptoms, and ability to perform common func-
tional activities between our study groups. Moreover, most of the individual items and the global health status and quality
of life score were not significantly different among the groups. One explanation for the lack of a relationship between an
improvement in the shoulder horizontal abduction degree and the upper-extremity symptoms, function, and quality of life is
that there was no long-term follow-up outcome measurement in our study. At the end of the 4-week stretching treatment, an
improvement in shoulder horizontal abduction was detected, but it did not lead to an improvement in upper-extremity symp-
toms, function, or quality of life. A previous study showed that the DASH score had the strongest correlation with shoulder
range of motion, including rotation and abduction33). However, no study has revealed a correlation between the presence
of PMT and the DASH score. In our current study, an improvement in PMT did not lead to an increase in the DASH score.
This study is the first to evaluate an effective method for stretching of PMT in breast cancer patients. Despite a high
prevalence of PMT in breast cancer patients, problems related to pectoral tightness have been overlooked and few studies of
PMT were conducted previously. Physicians should be more concerned about PMT in breast cancer patients and investigators
should make an effort to evaluate effective stretching methods for PMT.
A previous study measured PMT using the pectoralis minor length test, which is defined by the linear distance from the
treatment table to the posterior aspect of the acromion when the subject is in the supine position7). This test was previously
described by Sahrmann et al34). However, in our current study, we assessed PMT with one method, as described above. In

Table 3. Changes in shoulder horizontal abduction, VAS, DASH, EORTCQLQ C-30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 scores in
the three groups

Group A (n=11) Group B (n=11) Group C (n=10)

Δ horizontal abduction in affected side* 10.0 (7.8) 25.7 (27.1)† 23.3 (10.8)†
Δ VAS –1.0 (1.4) –1.2 (1.7) –1.8 (1.6)
Δ DASH score 4.5 (10.9) 7.0 (4.6) 5.2 (6.2)
EORTC QLQ-C30
Δ Global health status/ QoL 7.6 (4.3) 9.3 (4.8) 15.1 (2.8)
Δ Functional scales 8.4 (3.8) 9.8 (4.6) 14.9 (8.2)
Δ Symptom scales –1.7 (6.9) –0.85 (1.3) –1.2 (5.9)
EORTC QLQ-BR23
Δ Functional scales 0.9 (2.3) 7.4 (18.4) 13.2 (7.6)
Δ Symptom scales 2.4 (4.0) 1.7 (3.1) 2.5 (7.6)
Values are expressed as mean (SD).
*p<0.05 by ANOVA test.
† p<0.025 by Bonferroni correction, compared with Group A.

VAS: visual analogue scale; DASH: Disability of Arm and Shoulder and Hand; EORTC QLQ-C30: European Organiza-
tion for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EORTC QLQ-BR23: European Organization
for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast-Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire; QoL: quality of life

3033
the absence of definitive diagnostic criteria to rule out pectoralis tightness, various methods for measuring outcomes may be
helpful for assessing the effectiveness of stretching for PMT. Another limitation of our study was the small sample size and
the lack of long-term follow-up of outcome measurements. In addition, we could not control for patient compliance with our
stretching program. Finally, we did not measure other late complications in breast cancer patients, such as myofascial pain
syndrome and rotator-cuff disease. Further studies with long-term follow-up and measurement of the occurrence of other
disabilities may be needed.
Horizontal abduction differences between shoulders are more prominent when the arms are abducted to 90° or 135°. The
appropriate arm abduction angle for measuring horizontal abduction may be >90°. For pectoral muscle stretching, an arm
abduction angle>90° may also be effective; however, large-scaled randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Conflict of interest
We certify that no party having a direct interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a
benefit on us or on any organization with which we are associated. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1) Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al.: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer, 2010, 127: 2893–2917. [Medline] [Cross-
Ref]
2) Anderson BO: Breast cancer—thinking globally. Science, 2014, 343: 1403. [Medline] [CrossRef]
3) Cheville AL, Tchou J: Barriers to rehabilitation following surgery for primary breast cancer. J Surg Oncol, 2007, 95: 409–418. [Medline] [CrossRef]
4) Thomas-Maclean RL, Hack T, Kwan W, et al.: Arm morbidity and disability after breast cancer: new directions for care. Oncol Nurs Forum, 2008, 35: 65–71.
[Medline] [CrossRef]
5) Yang EJ, Park WB, Seo KS, et al.: Longitudinal change of treatment-related upper limb dysfunction and its impact on late dysfunction in breast cancer survi-
vors: a prospective cohort study. J Surg Oncol, 2010, 101: 84–91. [Medline] [CrossRef]
6) Sugden EM, Rezvani M, Harrison JM, et al.: Shoulder movement after the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol), 1998, 10: 173–181.
[Medline] [CrossRef]
7) Yang EJ, Kang E, Jang JY, et al.: Effect of a mixed solution of sodium hyaluronate and carboxymethyl cellulose on upper limb dysfunction after total mastec-
tomy: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2012, 136: 187–194. [Medline] [CrossRef]
8) Bentzen SM, Dische S: Morbidity related to axillary irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. Acta Oncol, 2000, 39: 337–347. [Medline] [CrossRef]
9) Ryttov N, Holm NV, Qvist N, et al.: Influence of adjuvant irradiation on the development of late arm lymphedema and impaired shoulder mobility after mas-
tectomy for carcinoma of the breast. Acta Oncol, 1988, 27: 667–670. [Medline] [CrossRef]
10) Collins LG, Nash R, Round T, et al.: Perceptions of upper-body problems during recovery from breast cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer, 2004, 12:
106–113. [Medline] [CrossRef]
11) Nesvold IL, Fosså SD, Holm I, et al.: Arm/shoulder problems in breast cancer survivors are associated with reduced health and poorer physical quality of life.
Acta Oncol, 2010, 49: 347–353. [Medline] [CrossRef]
12) Kaya T, Karatepe AG, Günaydn R, et al.: Disability and health-related quality of life after breast cancer surgery: relation to impairments. South Med J, 2010,
103: 37–41. [Medline] [CrossRef]
13) Deutsch M, Flickinger JC: Shoulder and arm problems after radiotherapy for primary breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol, 2001, 24: 172–176. [Medline] [CrossRef]
14) Wingate L: Efficacy of physical therapy for patients who have undergone mastectomies. A prospective study. Phys Ther, 1985, 65: 896–900. [Medline]
15) Wingate L, Croghan I, Natarajan N, et al.: Rehabilitation of the mastectomy patient: a randomized, blind, prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1989, 70:
21–24. [Medline]
16) Gosselink R, Rouffaer L, Vanhelden P, et al.: Recovery of upper limb function after axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol, 2003, 83: 204–211. [Medline] [CrossRef]
17) Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM, Beith JM, et al.: Progressive resistance training and stretching following surgery for breast cancer: study protocol for a ran-
domised controlled trial. BMC Cancer, 2006, 6: 273. [Medline] [CrossRef]
18) Moskovitz AH, Anderson BO, Yeung RS, et al.: Axillary web syndrome after axillary dissection. Am J Surg, 2001, 181: 434–439. [Medline] [CrossRef]
19) Leidenius M, Leppänen E, Krogerus L, et al.: Motion restriction and axillary web syndrome after sentinel node biopsy and axillary clearance in breast cancer.
Am J Surg, 2003, 185: 127–130. [Medline] [CrossRef]
20) Torres Lacomba M, Mayoral Del Moral O, Coperias Zazo JL, et al.: Axillary web syndrome after axillary dissection in breast cancer: a prospective study.
Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2009, 117: 625–630. [Medline] [CrossRef]
21) Gresham GE, Fitzpatrick TE, Wolf PA, et al.: Residual disability in survivors of stroke—the Framingham study. N Engl J Med, 1975, 293: 954–956. [Medline]
[CrossRef]
22) Lee JY, Lim JY, Oh JH, et al.: Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical evaluation of a Korean version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand outcome
questionnaire (K-DASH). J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2008, 17: 570–574. [Medline] [CrossRef]
23) Bohannon RW: Muscle strength and muscle training after stroke. J Rehabil Med, 2007, 39: 14–20. [Medline] [CrossRef]
24) Dowrick AS, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, et al.: Outcome instruments for the assessment of the upper extremity following trauma: a review. Injury, 2005, 36:
468–476. [Medline] [CrossRef]
25) Yun YH, Bae SH, Kang IO, et al.: Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
(EORTC) Breast-Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Support Care Cancer, 2004, 12: 441–445. [Medline] [CrossRef]
26) Park KU: Assessment of change of quality of life in terminally ill patients under cancer pain management using the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire
(QLQ-C30) in a Korean sample. Oncology, 2008, 74: 7–12. [Medline] [CrossRef]

3034 J. Phys. Ther. Sci. Vol. 28, No. 11, 2016

27) Yun YH, Park YS, Lee ES, et al.: Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res, 2004, 13: 863–868. [Medline] [CrossRef]
28) Goldie PA, Matyas TA, Evans OM: Deficit and change in gait velocity during rehabilitation after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1996, 77: 1074–1082. [Med-
line] [CrossRef]
29) Mackay-Lyons MJ, Makrides L: Exercise capacity early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2002, 83: 1697–1702. [Medline] [CrossRef]
30) Weerdesteyn V, de Niet M, van Duijnhoven HJ, et al.: Falls in individuals with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2008, 45: 1195–1213. [Medline] [CrossRef]
31) Suzuki K, Imada G, Iwaya T, et al.: Determinants and predictors of the maximum walking speed during computer-assisted gait training in hemiparetic stroke
patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1999, 80: 179–182. [Medline] [CrossRef]
32) Lee TS, Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM, et al.: Pectoral stretching program for women undergoing radiotherapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2007,
102: 313–321. [Medline] [CrossRef]
33) Harrington S, Padua D, Battaglini C, et al.: Upper extremity strength and range of motion and their relationship to function in breast cancer survivors. Phys-
iother Theory Pract, 2013, 29: 513–520. [Medline] [CrossRef]
34) Laurent S, Katsahian S, Fassot C, et al.: Aortic stiffness is an independent predictor of fatal stroke in essential hypertension. Stroke, 2003, 34: 1203–1206.
[Medline] [CrossRef]

3035