Doeringer Jeffrey R, Ramirez Ramon, Colas Megan
Rehabilitative Sciences and Athletic Training, Ila Faye Miller School of Nursing and Health Professions, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX,USA.
Athletic Training Resident, Athletic Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL,USA.
J Sport Rehabil. 2022 Aug 11;32(2):165-169. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2022-0015. Print 2023 Feb 1.
Limited research reveals that the use of different soft tissue mobilization techniques increases tissue mobility in different regions of the body.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between administering instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and therapeutic cupping (TC) on hamstring tightness.
Subjects attended one session wherein treatment and leg order were randomized before attending the session. A statistical analysis was completed using a 2 (intervention) × 2 (time) repeated-measures analysis of variance at α level ≤ .05.
Thirty-three subjects between the age of 18-35 years old with bilateral hamstring tightness participated in this study.
The IASTM and TC were administered on different legs for 5 minutes and over the entire area of the hamstring muscles. One TC was moved over the entire treatment area in a similar fashion as the IASTM.
The intervention measurements included soreness numeric rating scale, Sit-n-Reach (single leg for side being tested), goniometric measurement for straight-leg hip-flexion motion, and superficial skin temperature. The timeline for data collection included: (1) intervention measurements for the first randomized leg, (2) 5-minute treatment with the first intervention treatment, (3) intervention measurements repeated for postintervention outcomes, and (4) repeat the same steps for 1 to 3 with the contralateral leg and the other intervention.
There was a main effect over time for Sit-n-Reach, measurement (pre-IASTM-29.50 [8.54], post-IASTM-32.11 [8.31] and pre-TC-29.67 [8.21], post-TC-32.05 [8.25]) and goniometric measurement (pre-IASTM-83.45 [13.86], post-IASTM-92.73 [13.20] and pre-TC-83.76 [11.97], post-TC-93.67 [12.15]; P < .05).
Both IASTM and TC impacted hamstring mobility during a single treatment using only an instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique without any additional therapeutic intervention.
有限的研究表明，使用不同的软组织松动技术可增加身体不同部位的组织活动度。
本研究的目的是确定在改善腘绳肌紧张方面，实施器械辅助软组织松动术（IASTM）和治疗性拔罐（TC）之间是否存在差异。
受试者参加一次治疗，在治疗前对治疗方式和腿部顺序进行随机分组。使用α水平≤0.05的2（干预）×2（时间）重复测量方差分析进行统计分析。
33名年龄在18至35岁之间、双侧腘绳肌紧张的受试者参与了本研究。
IASTM和TC分别作用于不同的腿，持续5分钟，覆盖腘绳肌的整个区域。一个TC杯以与IASTM类似的方式在整个治疗区域移动。
干预测量包括酸痛数字评定量表、坐立前屈（测试侧单腿）、直腿髋关节屈曲运动的角度测量以及体表皮肤温度。数据收集的时间点包括：（1）对第一条随机分组腿进行干预测量；（2）用第一种干预方法进行5分钟治疗；（3）重复干预测量以获取干预后结果；（4）对另一条腿和另一种干预方法重复1至3的相同步骤。
坐立前屈、测量值（IASTM前-29.50[8.54]，IASTM后-32.11[8.31]，TC前-29.67[8.21]，TC后-32.05[8.25]）和角度测量值（IASTM前-83.45[13.86]，IASTM后-92.73[13.20]，TC前-83.76[11.97]，TC后-93.67[12.15]；P<0.05）随时间有主效应。
仅使用器械辅助软组织松动技术，在单次治疗中，IASTM和TC均对腘绳肌的活动度有影响，无需任何额外的治疗干预。
