COMPARING THE EFFECTS OF SELF‐MYOFASCIAL RELEASE WITH STATIC STRETCHING ON ANKLE RANGE‐OF‐MOTION IN ADOLESCENT ATHLETES

Background:

Increased flexibility is often desirable immediately prior to sports performance. Static stretching (SS) has historically been the main method for increasing joint range‐of‐motion (ROM) acutely. However, SS is associated with acute reductions in performance. Foam rolling (FR) is a form of self‐myofascial release (SMR) that also increases joint ROM acutely but does not seem to reduce force production. However, FR has never previously been studied in resistance‐trained athletes, in adolescents, or in individuals accustomed to SMR.

Objective:

To compare the effects of SS and FR and a combination of both (FR+SS) of the plantarflexors on passive ankle dorsiflexion ROM in resistance‐trained, adolescent athletes with at least six months of FR experience.

Methods:

Eleven resistance‐trained, adolescent athletes with at least six months of both resistance‐training and FR experience were tested on three separate occasions in a randomized cross‐over design. The subjects were assessed for passive ankle dorsiflexion ROM after a period of passive rest pre‐intervention, immediately post‐intervention and after 10, 15, and 20 minutes of passive rest. Following the pre‐intervention test, the subjects randomly performed either SS, FR or FR+SS. SS and FR each comprised 3 sets of 30 seconds of the intervention with 10 seconds of inter‐set rest. FR+SS comprised the protocol from the FR condition followed by the protocol from the SS condition in sequence.

Results:

A significant effect of time was found for SS, FR and FR+SS. Post hoc testing revealed increases in ROM between baseline and post‐intervention by 6.2% for SS (p < 0.05) and 9.1% for FR+SS (p < 0.05) but not for FR alone. Post hoc testing did not reveal any other significant differences between baseline and any other time point for any condition. A significant effect of condition was observed immediately post‐intervention. Post hoc testing revealed that FR+SS was superior to FR (p < 0.05) for increasing ROM.

Conclusions:

FR, SS and FR+SS all lead to acute increases in flexibility and FR+SS appears to have an additive effect in comparison with FR alone. All three interventions (FR, SS and FR+SS) have time courses that lasted less than 10 minutes.

Level of evidence:

2c     

PASSIVE HIP RANGE OF MOTION IS REDUCED IN ACTIVE SUBJECTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN COMPARED TO CONTROLS

Background

Non‐specific low back pain is a common condition often without a clear mechanism for its presentation. Recently more attention has been placed on the hip and its potential contributions to non‐specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). Emphasis in research has mainly been placed on motor control, strength and endurance factors in relation to NSCLBP. Limited focus has been placed on hip mobility and its potential contribution in subjects with NSCLBP.

Purpose/Aim

The aim of this study was to compare passive ROM in hip extension, hip internal rotation, hip external rotation and total hip rotation in active subjects with NSCLBP to healthy control subjects. The hypothesis was that active subjects with NSCLBP would present with decreased total hip ROM and greater asymmetry when compared to controls.

Design

Two group case controlled

Setting

Clinical research laboratory

Participants

30 healthy subjects without NSCLBP and 30 active subjects with NSCLBP. Subjects categorized as NSCLBP were experiencing pain in the low back area with or without radicular symptoms of greater than three months duration.

Main Outcome Measure

Passive hip extension (EXT), hip internal rotation (IR), hip external rotation (ER) and total hip rotation ROM. A digital inclinometer was used for measurements.

Results

There was a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) in hip passive extension ROM between the control group and the NSCLBP group bilaterally. Mean hip extension for the control group was 6.88 bilaterally. For the NSCLBP group, the mean hip extension was ‐4.28 bilaterally. This corresponds to a difference of means between groups of 10.88. There was no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) in hip IR, ER, or total rotation ROM between groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that a significant difference in hip extension exists in active subjects with NSCLBP compared to controls. It may be important to consider hip mobility restrictions and their potential impact on assessment of strength in NSLBP subjects. Future studies may be needed to investigate the relationship between measurements and intervention strategies.

Level of Evidence

2b