Taghizadeh Delkhoush Cyrus, Arzani Parisa, Mirmohammadkhani Majid, Bagheri Rasool, Norouzi Adeleh
Neuromuscular Rehabilitation Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
Department of Physical Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
J Chiropr Med. 2024 Dec;23(4):153-161. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2024.08.002. Epub 2024 Sep 30.
The purpose of the study was to compare the impact of the mobilization techniques and mobilization with movement techniques on static balance in individuals with acute inversion ankle sprain.
Volunteers with acute inversion ankle sprain ( = 40) were equally and randomly assigned to 2 groups. Participants in intervention group I received the Mulligan mobilization with movement techniques, whereas participants in intervention group II underwent the Maitland mobilization techniques. Each participant received the intervention every other day for 2 consecutive weeks. To assess static balance, participants assumed a single-leg stance on the affected leg at the center of a force plate with eyes open or closed plate for 20 seconds. The displacement, velocity, and area of the center of pressure were recorded 1 day before and after the intervention.
The velocity of the center of pressure in the anterior-posterior direction was significantly reduced only in group I during eyes open ( = .043) and closed ( = .004). However, the displacement of the center of pressure in the anterior-posterior direction was significantly decreased in both group I ( = .024) and group II ( = .028) with eyes open. No significant changes were found in the area of the center of pressure in either group during eyes open or closed ( > .053).
Both Mulligan's and Maitland's approaches significantly improved sway displacement. For the individuals with acute inversion ankle sprain who were included in this study, the Mulligan technique were more effective in improving static balance indicators compared to the Maitland technique.
The study was then registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (17/02/2019) (IRCT20190108042292N2).
本研究旨在比较松动技术和动态松动技术对急性内翻踝关节扭伤患者静态平衡的影响。
40名急性内翻踝关节扭伤的志愿者被平均随机分为两组。干预组I的参与者接受了 Mulligan 动态松动技术,而干预组II的参与者接受了 Maitland 松动技术。每位参与者每隔一天接受一次干预,持续两周。为了评估静态平衡,参与者在测力平台中心以患侧单腿站立,睁眼或闭眼站立20秒。在干预前后1天记录压力中心的位移、速度和面积。
仅在干预组I中,睁眼(P = .043)和闭眼(P = .004)时,前后方向的压力中心速度显著降低。然而,睁眼时,干预组I(P = .024)和干预组II(P = .028)的前后方向压力中心位移均显著降低。睁眼或闭眼时,两组的压力中心面积均未发现显著变化(P > .053)。
Mulligan法和Maitland法均能显著改善摆动位移。对于本研究中纳入的急性内翻踝关节扭伤患者,与Maitland技术相比,Mulligan技术在改善静态平衡指标方面更有效。
该研究随后在伊朗临床试验注册中心注册(2019年2月17日)(IRCT20190108042292N2)。