Efficacy of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization in comparison to gastrocnemius-soleus stretching for dorsiflexion range of motion: A randomized controlled trial
Efficacy of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization in comparison to gastrocnemius-soleus stretching for dorsiflexion range of motion: A randomized controlled trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.02.008
复制
发表时间：
2019-04-01
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Kolber, Morey J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rowlett, Carrie A.;Hanney, William J.;Kolber, Morey J.
目的：评价IASTM治疗腓肠肌-比目鱼肌复合体的疗效，并与传统的拉伸干预方法进行比较。方法：60名健康受试者随机分为3组：IASTM组(n=20)、牵伸组(n=20)和对照组(n=20)。本研究的因变量为背屈活动范围(ROM)，通过三种测量方法，包括改良根位1-膝关节伸展(MRP1)、改良根位2-膝关节屈曲(MRP2)和负重弓步试验(WBLT)。采用多变量方差分析(MANOVA)分析不同干预组(IASTM组、牵伸组和对照组)之间的ROM值差异，采用后处理Tukey检验和两两最小显著差异检验来评估两两差异。结果：MANOVA发现三个干预组之间的ROM值有显著差异(F-6，F-110=2.40，p=.032)。通过WBLT和MRP2评估，IASTM和对照组以及伸展组和对照组之间都有统计学上的差异，但在MRP1评估中没有统计学差异。此外，在IASTM组和伸展组之间，使用这三种方法中的任何一种方法，都没有统计学意义上的差异。结论：单次IASTM或伸展可以增加WBLT和MRP2的踝关节背屈活动度。MRP1差异无统计学意义。IASTM和拉伸似乎都对比目鱼肌的柔韧性有更大的影响，这一点从膝关节在屈曲位置测量的ROM值得到了证明。干预组之间在负重条件方面没有发现临床上的显著差异；因此，赋予患者使用自我拉伸的能力似乎是合理和有效的。伸展和IASTM的联合效应值得进一步研究以增加背屈活动范围，因为终末效应尚不清楚。(C)2018爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。
Objectives: To determine the efficacy of IASTM of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex in comparison to a traditional stretching intervention on dorsiflexion ROM.Methods: Sixty healthy participants were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: IASTM (n = 20), stretching (n = 20), or control group (n = 20). The dependent variables for this study was dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) via three measurement methods which included Modified root position 1- knee extended (MRP1), Modified root position 2-knee flexed (MRP2), and weight bearing lunge test (WBLT). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was utilized to analyze the ROM differences between the groups (IASTM, stretching, and control groups), with a post-hoc Tukey and pairwise least significant difference tests to assess individual pairwise differences between the groups.Results: The MANOVA found significant ROM differences between the three intervention groups (F-6,F-110 = 2.40, p = .032). Statistically significant differences were identified between both the IASTM and control as well as the stretching and control group through the WBLT and MRP2 assessments, but not in the MRP1 assessment. Further, there was no statistically significant difference between the IASTM and stretching groups using any of the three methods.Conclusion: A single session of IASTM or stretching increased ankle dorsiflexion ROM in WBLT and MRP2. No significant difference was noted in the MRP1. Both IASTM and stretching appear to have a greater effect on soleus muscle flexibility as evidenced by ROM gains measured with the knee in a flexed position. No clinically significant difference was identified between the intervention groups in weight-bearing conditions; thus empowering patients with the use of self-stretching would seemingly be reasonable and efficient. Combined effects of stretching and IASTM warrant further investigation for increasing dorsiflexion range of motion as a summative effect is unknown. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.