Search Results

You are looking at 51 - 60 of 832 items for :

Clear All
Restricted access

Troy R. Garrett and Peter J. Neibert

Clinical Scenario:

Injury to the plantar fascia, whether acute or chronic, is common among many populations. A conventional multiple-treatment approach is commonly administered by health care providers, consisting of controlling inflammation, managing pain, and promoting healing. Frequently, the initial treatment for plantar fasciitis is targeted at increasing dorsiflexion range of motion by stretching the gastroc-soleus musculature. It has been theorized that inflexibility of the gastroc-soleus complex can lead to excessive pronation and overcompensation of the plantar fascia at the first metatarsal phalangeal joint, therefore increasing the stress at the medial calcaneal insertion. Therefore, it is deemed that gastrocnemius–soleus stretches are a beneficial treatment in the initial stage of a plantar fasciitis treatment or rehabilitation program.

Focused Clinical Question:

Is a gastrocnemius–soleus stretching program, as a stand-alone treatment variable, effective in the treatment of plantar fasciitis?

Restricted access

Alan A. Zakaria, Robert B. Kiningham and Ananda Sen

Objective:

To determine if there is any benefit to static stretching after performing a dynamic warm-up in the prevention of injury in high school soccer athletes.

Design:

Prospective cluster randomized nonblinded study.

Setting:

12 high schools with varsity and junior varsity boys’ soccer teams (24 soccer teams) across the state of Michigan.

Participants:

Four hundred ninety-nine student-athletes were enrolled, and 465 completed the study. One high school dropped out of the study in the first week, leaving a total of 22 teams.

Interventions:

Dynamic stretching protocol vs dynamic + static (D+S) stretching protocol.

Main Outcome Measures:

Lower-extremity, core, or lower-back injuries per team.

Results:

Twelve teams performed the dynamic stretching protocol and 10 teams performed the D+S stretching protocol. There were 17 injuries (1.42 ± 1.49 injuries/team) among the teams that performed the dynamic stretching protocol and 20 injuries (2.0 ± 1.24 injuries/team) among the teams that performed the D+S protocol. There was no statistically significant difference in injuries between the 2 groups (P = .33).

Conclusions:

There is no difference between dynamic stretching and D+S stretching in the prevention of lower-extremity, core, and back injuries in high school male soccer athletes. Static stretching does not provide any added benefit to dynamic stretching in the prevention of injury in this population before exercise.

Restricted access
Restricted access
Restricted access
Restricted access
Restricted access
Restricted access
Restricted access
Restricted access