Search Results

Context: Soft tissue restrictions have been linked to poor flexibility and decreased range of motion (ROM). To decrease the soft tissue restrictions and ultimately increase ROM/flexibility, myofascial release techniques, such as foam rolling (FR) and instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), have been used. However, the benefit regarding which technique is more beneficial remains unknown. Objective: To examine the effects of myofascial release techniques (FR vs the instrumented portion of IASTM) on knee joint ROM, rectus femoris (RF) and biceps femoris (BF) fascial displacement, and patient satisfaction. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Mid-Atlantic University. Participants: Twenty moderately active participants (age 21.1 [2.0] y) with variable levels of soft tissue restriction in the quadriceps and hamstrings started and completed the study. Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups, FR or IASTM. Interventions: All participants completed the same warm-up prior to the intervention. The FR group followed the proper FR protocol for gluteals/iliotibial band, quadriceps, and hamstrings/adductors, and the participants were monitored while the protocol was completed. The IASTM group received treatment on the gluteals/iliotibial band followed by the quadriceps, adductors, and hamstrings. Participants in both groups attended intervention sessions twice per week for 3 weeks. Prior to the start, knee ROM measurements were taken, along with fascial displacement measured via ultrasound. Upon completion of the study, posttest measurements were completed. A patient satisfaction survey was also administered at this time. Main Outcome Measures: Pretest to posttest knee ROM measurements, RF and BF fascial displacement, and patient satisfaction. Results: Both groups improved pretest to posttest for knee-extension ROM, with a slight trend toward increased knee-extension ROM for the FR group. Both groups improved pretest to posttest for BF and RF fascial displacement, in favor of the IASTM group for BF fascial displacement. Both groups were equally satisfied. Conclusions: As both groups improved pretest to posttest, either treatment could be used.

Context: Lower-extremity stress fractures (SFx) are a common occurrence during load-bearing activities of jumping and landing. To detect biomechanical changes during jumping postinjury, a fatigue model could be used. Objective: To evaluate muscle activation in the lower leg and tibial accelerations (TAs) prefatigue to postfatigue following a jumping task in those with and without a history of SFx. Design: Repeated-measures. Setting: Athletic Training Research Lab. Participants: A total of 30 active college-aged students with and without a history of lower-extremity (leg or foot) SFx (15 males and 15 females; 21.5 [5.04] y, height = 173.5 [12.7] cm, weight = 72.65 [16.4] kg). Intervention: A maximal vertical jump on one leg 3 times with arms folded across the chest prefatigue to postfatigue was performed. Fatigue protocol was standing heel raises on a custom-built platform at a pace controlled by a metronome until task failure was reached. Legs were tested using a randomized testing order. Electromyographic (EMG) surface electrodes were placed on the medial gastrocnemius, soleus, and tibialis anterior following a standardized placement protocol. A triaxial accelerometer was attached to the proximal anteromedial surface of the tibia. Main Outcome Measures: Linear envelopes of the medial gastrocnemius, soleus, and tibialis anterior and peak accelerations (resultant acceleration takeoff and landing). Results: Significant interaction for leg × test for tibialis anterior with a posttest difference between SFx and control (P = .05). There were decreases in EMG linear envelope following fatigue for medial gastrocnemius (P < .01) and tibialis anterior (P = .12) pretest to posttest. At takeoff, TA was greater in the SFx contralateral leg in comparison with the control leg (P = .04). At landing, TA was greater in posttest (P < .01) and in the SFx leg compared with SFx contralateral (P = .14). Conclusion: A decrease in muscle activity and an increase in TA following fatigue were noted for all subjects but especially for those with a history of SFx.