Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 85 items for :

  • "ankle range of motion" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Restricted access

Blair Mills, Brad Mayo, Francisco Tavares, and Matthew Driller

effects of tissue flossing on ankle range of motion and jump performance . Phys Ther Sport . 2017 ; 25 : 20 – 24 . PubMed ID: 28254581 doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.12.004 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.12.004 28254581 2. Driller M , Mackay K , Mills B , Tavares F . Tissue flossing on ankle range of motion

Restricted access

Jack R. Engsberg, Sandy A. Ross, and Tae S. Park

This study was conducted to determine whether an objective and quantitative measure for active ankle range of motion would be sensitive to differences between persons of able body and those with cerebral palsy (CP), and between pre- and postselective dorsal rhizotomy (SDR). Twelve children with spastic diplegia CP were tested before undergoing an SDR, and again after 8 months of intensive physical therapy (SDR group). Fourteen other children with spastic diplegia were tested initially and again 8 months following no intervention but maintaining their existing level of physical therapy (CP group). Twenty age-matched children of able body were tested once (AB group). A video system recorded active sagittal plane ankle movements as the seated child independently performed maximum dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. The data were tracked and analyzed to determine end-range dorsiflexion and plantarflexion, and total active ankle range of motion. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests were used to test for significant differences among and between groups, p < 0. 05. Results for the SDR group indicated a significant increase in end-range dorsiflexion and total range of motion following the surgery, with no changes in any measures for the CP group. Results for both groups with CP indicated differences vs. the AB group. The measure provided additional information from what has previously been reported for active ankle range of motion. The integration of this measure with other objective measures for quantifying impairments and presurgical function may be useful in predicting post-SDR gait status and other functional activities.

Restricted access

Amandda de Souza, Cristiano Gomes Sanchotene, Cristiano Moreira da Silva Lopes, Jader Alfredo Beck, Affonso Celso Kulevicz da Silva, Suzana Matheus Pereira, and Caroline Ruschel

Context: Self-myofascial release (SMR) is an intervention popularly used by rehabilitation, fitness, and sports professionals to improve recovery and performance. In SMR, the athlete/patient applies pressure to the muscle and fascia using various tools, such as balls, rods, foam rolls, and massagers. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the acute effect of 2 SMR protocols (short term and long term) of the posterior thigh and calf muscles on hip and ankle range of motion (ROM) in physically active men. Participants: A total of 14 adult males (24.9 [3.2] y, 77.2 [13.2] kg, and 1.75 [0.06] m) who exercise regularly (at least twice a week, 45 min per session) participated in this study. Interventions: Participants performed a short-term SMR protocol (2 × 10 repetitions, SSMR) and a long-term SMR protocol (2 × 20 repetitions, LSMR) of the posterior thigh (using a foam roller) and calf (using a massage stick) muscles in counterbalanced order, on 2 different days with a 48-hour interval. Main Outcome Measures: Ankle dorsiflexion and hip-flexion ROM, evaluated at 5 moments: pre- and post-SSMR, pre- and post-LSMR, and in the control condition, which was always performed at the first visit. Results: The SMR promoted significant gains for both dorsiflexion (F 1,13 =202.67, P < .001, ηp2=.94) and hip flexion (F 1,13 = 66.46, P < .001, ηp2=.84), regardless of the protocol and limb analyzed. The average increase for both limbs corresponded, approximately, to 11% for ankle dorsiflexion and to 6% for and in hip flexion. Conclusions: The results suggest that SMR of the posterior thigh and calf muscles acutely increases the ROM of both hip flexion and ankle dorsiflexion and that duplicating the SMR volume from 10 to 20 repetitions per set seems not to promote additional gains.

Restricted access

Matjaž Vogrin, Fiona Novak, Teja Licen, Nina Greiner, Samo Mikl, and Miloš Kalc

, Preventing Injury, and Optimizing Athletic Performance . Las Vegas, NV : Victory Belt Publishing ; 2016 . 2. Driller MW , Overmayer RG . The effects of tissue flossing on ankle range of motion and jump performance . Phys Ther Sport . 2017 ; 25 : 20 – 24 . PubMed ID: 28254581 doi:10.1016/j

Restricted access

Lauren E. Schroeder, Rachel L. Tatarski, and Joshua T. Weinhandl

were observed after the joint mobilization intervention, and because of the positive correlation between ankle range of motion and knee range of motion, 16 it can be hypothesized that improvements in landing mechanics would also be seen at the knee that may decrease the risk of ACL injuries

Restricted access

Javad Sarvestan and Zdeněk Svoboda

.4085/1062-6050-49.3.08 24840583 10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.08 14. Purcell SB , Schuckman BE , Docherty CL , Schrader J , Poppy W . Differences in ankle range of motion before and after exercise in 2 tape conditions . Am J Sports Med . 2009 ; 37 ( 2 ): 383 – 389 . PubMed ID: 19088055 doi:10

Restricted access

Jennifer E. Meyer, Matthew J. Rivera, and Cameron J. Powden

Dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) is an integral component of physical activity. As such, deficits in DFROM can lead to altered biomechanics and an increased risk of injury. 1 Specifically, decreases in ankle range of motion (ROM) have been associated with 2.5 times the risk of injury and an

Restricted access

Akane Yoshimura, Robert Schleip, and Norikazu Hirose

: 28167184 doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.10.003 10.1016/j.jbmt.2016.10.003 9. Skarabot J , Beardsley C , Stirn I . Comparing the effects of self-myofascial release with static stretching on ankle range-of-motion in adolescent athletes . Int J Sports Phys Ther . 2015 ; 10 ( 2 ): 203 – 212 . PubMed ID

Restricted access

Brittany Mann, Allison H. Gruber, Shane P. Murphy, and Carrie L. Docherty

SD. * Significant difference compared with the no-brace condition ( P  < .05). Ankle Range of Motion Evaluation of the kinematic data supported our functional performance results by also establishing a significant difference between the conditions ( P  = .01). Follow-up univariate analysis identified

Restricted access

Anna C. Gutierrez and Monica R. Lininger

third session ( p  = .009). Figure 3 —Mean ankle range of motion (ROM) results for both the right and left ankles in plantar flexion and dorsiflexion for sessions 1, 2, and 3. Neither the right ( p  = .11) nor the left ( p  = .43) stance leg improved significantly in the anterior reach direction over