Cheatham Scott W, Stull Kyle R, Kolber Morey J
J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Jan 1;28(1):39-45. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2017-0164.
Roller massage (RM) has become a common intervention among health and fitness professionals. Recently, manufacturers have merged the science of vibration therapy and RM with the development of vibration rollers. Of interest, is the therapeutic effects of such RM devices.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a vibration roller and nonvibration roller intervention on prone knee-flexion passive range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the quadriceps musculature.
Forty-five recreationally active adults were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: vibration roller, nonvibration roller, and control. Each roller intervention lasted a total of 2 minutes. The control group did not roll. Dependent variables included prone knee-flexion ROM and PPT measures. Statistical analysis included parametric and nonparametric tests to measure changes among groups.
The vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in PPT (180 kPa, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (112 kPa, P < .001) and control (61 kPa, P < .001). For knee flexion ROM, the vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in ROM (7°, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (5°, P < .001) and control (2°, P < .001). Between groups, there was a significant difference in PPT between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .03) and vibration roller and control (P < .001). There was also a significant difference between the nonvibration roller and control (P < .001). For knee ROM, there was no significant difference between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .31). A significant difference was found between the vibration roller and control group (P < .001) and nonvibration roller and control group (P < .001).
The results suggest that a vibration roller may increase an individual's tolerance to pain greater than a nonvibration roller. This investigation should be considered a starting point for future research on this technology.
滚筒按摩（RM）已成为健康和健身专业人员常用的干预手段。最近，制造商将振动疗法科学与滚筒按摩相结合，开发出了振动滚筒。人们感兴趣的是此类滚筒按摩设备的治疗效果。
本研究旨在比较振动滚筒和非振动滚筒干预对俯卧位时膝关节屈曲被动活动范围（ROM）和股四头肌压力痛阈（PPT）的影响。
45名有休闲运动习惯的成年人被随机分为3组之一：振动滚筒组、非振动滚筒组和对照组。每次滚筒干预总共持续2分钟。对照组不进行滚筒按摩。因变量包括俯卧位膝关节屈曲ROM和PPT测量值。统计分析包括用于测量组间变化的参数检验和非参数检验。
振动滚筒组的PPT增加幅度最大（180kPa，P<.001），其次是非振动滚筒组（112kPa，P<.001）和对照组（61kPa，P<.001）。对于膝关节屈曲ROM，振动滚筒组的ROM增加幅度最大（7°，P<.001），其次是非振动滚筒组（5°，P<.001）和对照组（2°，P<.001）。组间比较，振动滚筒组与非振动滚筒组的PPT存在显著差异（P=.03），振动滚筒组与对照组的PPT也存在显著差异（P<.001）。非振动滚筒组与对照组之间也存在显著差异（P<.001）。对于膝关节ROM，振动滚筒组与非振动滚筒组之间无显著差异（P=.31）。振动滚筒组与对照组之间存在显著差异（P<.001），非振动滚筒组与对照组之间也存在显著差异（P<.001）。
结果表明，振动滚筒可能比非振动滚筒更能提高个体对疼痛的耐受性。本研究应被视为该技术未来研究的起点。
