Journal of sport rehabilitation · 2022
Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization Increased Hamstring Mobility.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doeringer Jeffrey R, Ramirez Ramon, Colas Megan
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Limited research reveals that the use of different soft tissue mobilization techniques increases tissue mobility in different regions of the body.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between administering instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and therapeutic cupping (TC) on hamstring tightness.
DESIGN: Subjects attended one session wherein treatment and leg order were randomized before attending the session. A statistical analysis was completed using a 2 (intervention) × 2 (time) repeated-measures analysis of variance at α level ≤ .05.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three subjects between the age of 18-35 years old with bilateral hamstring tightness participated in this study.
INTERVENTIONS: The IASTM and TC were administered on different legs for 5 minutes and over the entire area of the hamstring muscles. One TC was moved over the entire treatment area in a similar fashion as the IASTM.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The intervention measurements included soreness numeric rating scale, Sit-n-Reach (single leg for side being tested), goniometric measurement for straight-leg hip-flexion motion, and superficial skin temperature. The timeline for data collection included: (1) intervention measurements for the first randomized leg, (2) 5-minute treatment with the first intervention treatment, (3) intervention measurements repeated for postintervention outcomes, and (4) repeat the same steps for 1 to 3 with the contralateral leg and the other intervention.
RESULTS: There was a main effect over time for Sit-n-Reach, measurement (pre-IASTM-29.50 [8.54], post-IASTM-32.11 [8.31] and pre-TC-29.67 [8.21], post-TC-32.05 [8.25]) and goniometric measurement (pre-IASTM-83.45 [13.86], post-IASTM-92.73 [13.20] and pre-TC-83.76 [11.97], post-TC-93.67 [12.15]; P < .05).
CONCLUSION: Both IASTM and TC impacted hamstring mobility during a single treatment using only an instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique without any additional therapeutic intervention.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between administering instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and therapeutic cupping (TC) on hamstring tightness.
DESIGN: Subjects attended one session wherein treatment and leg order were randomized before attending the session. A statistical analysis was completed using a 2 (intervention) × 2 (time) repeated-measures analysis of variance at α level ≤ .05.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three subjects between the age of 18-35 years old with bilateral hamstring tightness participated in this study.
INTERVENTIONS: The IASTM and TC were administered on different legs for 5 minutes and over the entire area of the hamstring muscles. One TC was moved over the entire treatment area in a similar fashion as the IASTM.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The intervention measurements included soreness numeric rating scale, Sit-n-Reach (single leg for side being tested), goniometric measurement for straight-leg hip-flexion motion, and superficial skin temperature. The timeline for data collection included: (1) intervention measurements for the first randomized leg, (2) 5-minute treatment with the first intervention treatment, (3) intervention measurements repeated for postintervention outcomes, and (4) repeat the same steps for 1 to 3 with the contralateral leg and the other intervention.
RESULTS: There was a main effect over time for Sit-n-Reach, measurement (pre-IASTM-29.50 [8.54], post-IASTM-32.11 [8.31] and pre-TC-29.67 [8.21], post-TC-32.05 [8.25]) and goniometric measurement (pre-IASTM-83.45 [13.86], post-IASTM-92.73 [13.20] and pre-TC-83.76 [11.97], post-TC-93.67 [12.15]; P < .05).
CONCLUSION: Both IASTM and TC impacted hamstring mobility during a single treatment using only an instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique without any additional therapeutic intervention.