## 3 Results  
Of the 15 male professional wheelchair basketball athletes, 10 athletes, with mean age 33.75 \(\pm\) 6.42 years, met the eligibility criteria (Figure 3). They spent 7.13 \(\pm\) 0.75 h playing basketball per week and 4.00 \(\pm\) 1.63 h training per week. The 10 study participants suffered from lower limb amputations (\(n\) = 4), spinal cord injuries (\(n\) = 2), spina bifida (\(n\) = 1), cerebral palsy (\(n\) = 1), rickets (\(n\) = 1), and osteogenesis imperfecta (\(n\) = 1). Both clinical outcome measures significantly improved after the intervention: the WUSPI score from 27.0 \(\pm\) 18.5 to 25.0 \(\pm\) 21.5 (\(p\) = 0.009), and the KJOC score from 89.3 \(\pm\) 10.4 to 95.4 \(\pm\) 9.1 (\(p\) = 0.026). At T0, we found a significant difference between the dominant and non-dominant side for scapular upward rotation (\(p\) = 0.009) and glenohumeral abduction during scapular plane humeral elevation (\(p\) = 0.001). The study participants had a significant improvement in scapular upward rotation (\(p\) < 0.001), abduction (\(p\) < 0.001), and external rotation (\(p\) = 0.001)  
Figure 3: Flowchart of the recruitment process. of the glenohumeral joint after the treatment. Extension, flexion, and internal rotation did not show significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) (see Table 1 for further details). In particular, we found a statistically significant reduction in the contribution of the deltoid (32.41 \(\pm\) 15.73 at T0 vs. 28.33 \(\pm\) 9.25% of MVIC at T1; \(p\) = 0.042), and an increase in the contribution of the trees minor (4.28 \(\pm\) 3.61 at T0 vs. 6.35 \(\pm\) 3.48% of MVIC at T1; \(p\) = 0.029) and serratus anterior (29.29 \(\pm\) 17.58 at T0 vs. 36.48 \(\pm\) 25.73 at T1; \(p\) = 0.037) during the abduction of the upper limb movement. The pectoralis major (11.61 \(\pm\) 10.87 at T0 vs. 10.04 \(\pm\) 9.18% of MVIC at T1) and trapezius (21.37 \(\pm\) 29.38 at T0 vs. 18.63 \(\pm\) 25.47% of MVIC at T1) did not show significant differences (\(p>0.05\)). The propulsion pattern showed an improvement of the APR (0.066 \(\pm\) 0.054 cm at T0 vs. 0.084 \(\pm\) 0.059 at T1; \(p\) = 0.002) (Figure 4). Moreover, there was an average improvement of 4.8 \(\pm\) 3.2% in the acceleration for a single stroke from T0 to T1 and a significant improvement in sym (43.55 \(\pm\) 8.64 at T0 vs. 46.12 \(\pm\) 11.92 at T1; \(p\) = 0.031). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline  & & **T0** & **T1** & \(p\)**-Values** \\ \hline _Scapulothoracic joint_ & & & & \\ Abduction & Dominant & 33.30 \(\pm\) 7.57 & 36.00 \(\pm\) 7.77 & 0.018 \({}^{*}\) \\  & Non-dominant & 39.20 \(\pm\) 4.78 & 42.01 \(\pm\) 8.56 & 0.031 \({}^{*}\) \\ Extension & Dominant & 30.20 \(\pm\) 11.14 & 33.30 \(\pm\) 9.32 & 0.023 \({}^{*}\) \\  & Non-dominant & 29.20 \(\pm\) 14.49 & 32.40 \(\pm\) 18.16 & 0.015 \({}^{*}\) \\ _Glenohumeral joint_ & & & & \\ Abduction & Dominant & 123.60 \(\pm\) 33.35 & 147.50 \(\pm\) 16.20 & 0.007 \({}^{*}\) \\  & Non-dominant & 110.20 \(\pm\) 32.14 & 132.00 \(\pm\) 23.12 & 0.019 \({}^{*}\) \\ Extension & Dominant & 72.70 \(\pm\) 11.08 & 80.60 \(\pm\) 9.99 & 0.093 \\  & Non-dominant & 75.10 \(\pm\) 9.45 & 78.50 \(\pm\) 3.03 & 0.402 \\ Flexion & Dominant & 133.00 \(\pm\) 20.58 & 131.30 \(\pm\) 22.24 & 0.901 \\  & Non-dominant & 147.00 \(\pm\) 22.14 & 156.00 \(\pm\) 5.16 & 0.335 \\ External rotation & Dominant & 70.40 \(\pm\) 11.39 & 80.20 \(\pm\) 12.04 & 0.007 \({}^{*}\) \\  & Non-dominant & 54.40 \(\pm\) 14.21 & 77.10 \(\pm\) 20.72 & 0.021 \({}^{*}\) \\ Internal rotation & Dominant & 78.30 \(\pm\) 14.91 & 82.20 \(\pm\) 13.10 & 0.564 \\  & Non-dominant & 77.30 \(\pm\) 14.23 & 86.70 \(\pm\) 14.85 & 0.191 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Means \(\pm\) standard deviations for continuous variables. \({}^{*}\) = \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Differences in range of motion (degrees) of the scapulothoracic and glenohumeral joints before (T0) and after the 8-week intervention (T1). Figure 4: Mean of the stroke patterns in the athletes at the baseline (red line) and at the end of treatment (green line).