Cheatham Scott W, Baker Russell T, Behm David G, Stull Kyle, Kolber Morey J
California State University Dominguez Hills.
University of Idaho.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Jun 2;16(3):766-777. doi: 10.26603/001c.23530. eCollection 2021.
Mechanical percussion devices have become popular among sports medicine professionals. These devices provide a similar effect as manual percussion or tapotement used in therapeutic massage. To date, there are few published studies or evidence-based guidelines for these devices. There is a need to understand what professionals believe about this technology and how they use these devices in clinical practice.
To survey and document the knowledge, clinical application methods, and use of mechanical percussion devices among healthcare professionals in the United States.
Cross-sectional survey study.
A 25 question online survey was emailed to members of the National Athletic Trainers Association, Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapy, and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy.
Four hundred twenty-five professionals completed the survey. Most professionals (92%, n=391) used devices from two manufacturers: Hyperice® and Theragun®. Seventy-seven percent directed clients to manufacturer and generic websites (n=329) to purchase devices. Most respondents used a medium and low device speed setting for pre- and post-exercise (62%, n=185), pain modulation (59%, n=253), and myofascial mobility (52%, n=222). A large proportion of respondents preferred a total treatment time between 30 seconds and three minutes (36-48%, n=153-204) or three to five minutes (18-22%, n=76-93). Most respondents (54-69%, n=229-293) believed that mechanical percussion increases local blood flow, modulates pain, enhances myofascial mobility, and reduces myofascial restrictions. Most respondents (72%, n=305) were influenced by other colleagues to use these devices. Sixty-six percent used patient reported outcomes (n=280) to document treatment efficacy. Live instruction was the most common mode of education (79%, n=334).
These results are a starting point for future research and provide insight into how professionals use mechanical percussion devices. This survey also highlights the existing gap between research and practice. Future research should examine the efficacy of this technology and determine consensus-based guidelines.
机械冲击设备在运动医学专业人员中已变得很受欢迎。这些设备提供的效果与治疗性按摩中使用的手动冲击或叩击相似。迄今为止，针对这些设备的已发表研究或循证指南很少。有必要了解专业人员对这项技术的看法以及他们在临床实践中如何使用这些设备。
调查并记录美国医疗保健专业人员对机械冲击设备的知识、临床应用方法及使用情况。
横断面调查研究。
向国家运动训练协会、骨科物理治疗学会和美国运动物理治疗学会的成员发送了一份包含25个问题的在线调查问卷。
425名专业人员完成了调查。大多数专业人员（92%，n = 391）使用了两个制造商的设备：Hyperice® 和 Theragun®。77% 的人引导客户前往制造商和通用网站（n = 329）购买设备。大多数受访者在运动前和运动后、疼痛调节以及肌筋膜活动度方面使用中低速设备设置（62%，n = 185）。很大一部分受访者倾向于总治疗时间在30秒至3分钟之间（36 - 48%，n = 153 - 204）或3至5分钟（18 - 22%，n = 76 - 93）。大多数受访者（54 - 69%，n = 229 - 293）认为机械冲击可增加局部血流量、调节疼痛、增强肌筋膜活动度并减少肌筋膜限制。大多数受访者（72%，n = 305）受到其他同事的影响而使用这些设备。66% 的人使用患者报告的结果（n = 280）来记录治疗效果。现场指导是最常见的教育方式（79%，n = 334）。
这些结果是未来研究的起点，并为专业人员如何使用机械冲击设备提供了见解。这项调查还凸显了研究与实践之间现有的差距。未来的研究应检验这项技术的疗效并确定基于共识的指南。
3级。
