Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Physiotherapy, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune India.
Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Physiotherapy, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune India.
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2024 Jan;37:315-322. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.11.035. Epub 2023 Nov 23.
Instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization and foam rolling are two techniques that have been proven effective in treating Myofascial Trigger Points, irrespective of the type of trigger point. However, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of Instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization and foam rolling. This study proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of either technique on plantar flexors trigger points, ankle dorsiflexion, and lower limb power present in the calf muscles in non-symptomatic patients.
Forty-two subjects with bilateral calf muscle tightness, at least one trigger point in the calf muscle, and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to either of the groups. Group A was treated for gastrocnemius and soleus trigger points using Instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization and Group B was treated using the Foam Rolling method. Treatment was given every alternate day, a total of 3 sessions. Subjects were evaluated on 1st and 3rd sessions for pre-post differences of ankle dorsiflexion Range of motion in weight bearing and non-weight bearing position, pressure pain threshold for gastrocnemius trigger point 1(G1), 2(G2), and soleus point 1(S1) on both sides, and lower limb power.
Within group analyses, both groups had shown statistically significant results for all parameters except gastrocnemius trigger point 2 of foam rolling. For between group comparison foam rolling had a statistically significant result in non-weight bearing ankle dorsiflexion range of motion.
Both Instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization and Foam rolling were equally effective for treating calf trigger points. But foam rolling was more effective in improving ankle dorsiflexion range of motion.
器械辅助软组织松解和泡沫滚动是两种已被证明可有效治疗肌筋膜触发点的技术,而与触发点的类型无关。然而,对于器械辅助软组织松解和泡沫滚动的相对有效性知之甚少。本研究旨在评估这两种技术对非症状患者的足底屈肌触发点、踝关节背屈和小腿肌肉下肢力量的有效性。
42 名双侧小腿肌肉紧张、小腿肌肉至少有一个触发点且符合纳入标准的受试者被随机分配到两组中的任意一组。组 A 接受器械辅助软组织松解治疗腓肠肌和比目鱼肌触发点,组 B 接受泡沫滚动治疗。治疗隔日进行,共 3 次。受试者在第 1 次和第 3 次就诊时评估负重和非负重位踝关节背屈活动度、双侧 1(G1)、2(G2)和比目鱼肌触发点的压力疼痛阈值以及下肢力量的治疗前后差异。
组内分析显示,除泡沫滚动的腓肠肌触发点 2 外,两组在所有参数上均显示出统计学显著结果。对于组间比较,泡沫滚动在非负重位踝关节背屈活动度方面具有统计学显著差异。
器械辅助软组织松解和泡沫滚动对治疗小腿触发点同样有效。但泡沫滚动在改善踝关节背屈活动度方面更有效。