Gunn Leanna J, Stewart Jill Campbell, Morgan Brittany, Metts Steven T, Magnuson Justin M, Iglowski Nicholas J, Fritz Stacy L, Arnot Catherine
Physical Therapy Program, Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States of America.
J Man Manip Ther. 2019 Feb;27(1):15-23. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2018.1475693. Epub 2018 Aug 1.
: Tight hamstrings contribute to inefficiency of movement and increased risk for injury. Static stretching is the most common intervention for this problem, but the use of alternatives like instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) is increasing among clinicians. This study examined two prospective studies with the common aim of demonstrating the effectiveness of IASTM or PNF over static stretching for improving hamstring tightness. : Nondisabled adults were recruited on a university campus. IASTM study: = 17 (11 males and 6 females). PNF study: = 23 (7 males and 16 females). Hip flexion range of motion was measured with a passive straight leg raise (for IASTM) or active straight leg raise (for PNF) before and after stretching. Participants performed a self-static stretch on one leg and received the alternative intervention on the contralateral leg. The two studies were analyzed separately for reliability indices and significant differences between interventions. : Hip flexion measures showed good reliability in both studies (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97) with a minimal detectable change of <4.26. Both studies showed significant interactions between time and intervention ( < 0.05). Follow-up analyses revealed PNF and IASTM interventions resulted in greater increases in hip flexion range than static stretching. : These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of PNF and IASTM techniques over static stretching for hamstring flexibility. These interventions provide more efficient alternatives for improving flexibility in the clinic, allowing greater progress in a shorter period of time than an equivalent static stretching program. Level of Evidence: 1b.
腘绳肌紧张会导致运动效率低下和受伤风险增加。静态拉伸是针对这一问题最常见的干预措施,但像器械辅助软组织松动术(IASTM)和本体感觉神经肌肉促进法(PNF)等替代方法在临床医生中的使用正在增加。本研究考察了两项前瞻性研究,其共同目的是证明IASTM或PNF在改善腘绳肌紧张方面比静态拉伸更有效。
在大学校园招募非残疾成年人。IASTM研究:n = 17(11名男性和6名女性)。PNF研究:n = 23(7名男性和16名女性)。在拉伸前后,通过被动直腿抬高(用于IASTM)或主动直腿抬高(用于PNF)测量髋关节屈曲活动范围。参与者对一条腿进行自我静态拉伸,并在对侧腿接受替代干预。对两项研究分别分析可靠性指标和干预之间的显著差异。
髋关节屈曲测量在两项研究中均显示出良好的可靠性(组内相关系数 = 0.97),最小可检测变化 < 4.26。两项研究均显示时间和干预之间存在显著交互作用(P < 0.05)。随访分析显示,PNF和IASTM干预导致髋关节屈曲范围的增加比静态拉伸更大。
这些发现证明了PNF和IASTM技术在改善腘绳肌柔韧性方面比静态拉伸更有效。这些干预措施为临床改善柔韧性提供了更有效的替代方法,与同等的静态拉伸计划相比,能在更短时间内取得更大进展。证据级别:1b。