The acute effect in performing common range of motion tests in healthy young adults: a prospective study

Acute effects of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on non-local range of movement

Acute effects of static stretching (SS) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) on local and non-local range of motion (ROM) were assessed in 29 participants. Three evaluations were performed one week apart: week-1 Control session (CS); weeks 2-3 either SS or PNF interventions (randomized). Dominant and non-dominant limbs, local (hamstring extensibility) and non-local ROMs (Shoulder extension-ShE) were collected at baseline (T0), immediately after (T1), and fifteen minutes post-intervention (T2). No differences were found between time-points during the CS. Local-ROM significantly increased (p=0.0002, ES=0.74 and 0.0079, 0.56, for dominant and non-dominant lower limbs, respectively) after both SS and PNF. No interaction between time and treatment was detected for ShE in both limbs. However, post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in dominant upper limb ShE between T0 and T1 only after SS (p=0.002; +6.5%). Acute bouts of SS and PNF can increase local-ROM, however, no clear effects were observed for non-local ROM.

Acute effects of different administration order of stretching exercises: effects on range of motion and cross-over effect

BACKGROUND

The aim of this manuscript is to investigate if stretching exercise administration order may influence outcomes pertinent to range of movement (ROM).

METHODS

A total sample of 108 participants was randomized into five groups. Eight sets of unilateral static stretching (SS) of 30s duration each with a 30s rest were administered to the right leg. One group underwent SS of the knee extensors (KE), another to the knee flexors (KF), another first to the KE and then to the KF, another first to the KF and then to the KE while the last group was used as control (CG). Each group was assessed for ROM of both lower limbs for either the KE and KF motion (passive hip extention [PHE] and passive straight leg raise [PSLR], respectively). Measures were assessed before (T0), immediately after (T1), and 15 minutes after the intervention (T2).

RESULTS

No differences were observed for time (T0 vs. T1 vs. T2) for all measures in the CG for both limbs. Time-x-group interactions were observed only in the intervention limb (P<0.0007 and 0.004, ES 0.73 and 0.55, for KE and KF, respectively). Within the intervention limb, a significant increase in the PHE was observed from T0 to T1 only in the KE and KF/KE groups. For measures of the PSLR, a significant increase was observed from T0 to T1 only in the KF and KE/KF groups. No differences neither for time or group were observed in the control limb.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight that exercise administration order has an effect on ROM outcomes. Measures of ROM significantly increase only for the last stretched muscle in each intervention group. No crossover effect was observed in the contralateral limb.

Positional transversal release is effective as stretching on range of movement, performance and balance: a cross-over study

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the positional transversal release (PTR) technique to stretching and evaluate the acute effects on range of movement (ROM), performance and balance.

Methods

Thirty-two healthy individuals (25.3 ± 5.6 years; 68.8 ± 12.5 kg; 172.0 ± 8.8 cm) were tested on four occasions 1 week apart. ROM through a passive straight leg raise, jumping performance through a standing long jump (SLJ) and balance through the Y-balance test were measured. Each measure was assessed before (T0), immediately after (T1) and after 15 min (T2) of the provided intervention. On the first occasion, no intervention was administered (CG). The intervention order was randomized across participants and comprised static stretching (SS), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and the PTR technique. A repeated measure analysis of variance was used for comparisons.

Results

No differences across the T0 of the four testing sessions were observed. No differences between T0, T1 and T2 were present for the CG session. A significant time × group interaction for ROM in both legs from T0 to T1 (mean increase of 5.4° and 4.9° for right and left leg, respectively) was observed for SS, PNF and the PTR. No differences for all groups were present between T1 and T2. No differences in the SLJ and in measures of balance were observed across interventions.

Conclusions

The PTR is equally effective as SS and PNF in acutely increasing ROM of the lower limbs. However, the PTR results less time-consuming than SS and PNF. Performance and balance were unaffected by all the proposed interventions.

Skin Displacement as fascia tissue manipulation at the lower back affects instantaneously the flexion-and extension spine, pelvis, and hip range of motion

Low back pain (LBP), associated with spine, pelvis, and hip mobility impairments can be caused by tight muscle contractions, to protect sensitized lumbar fasciae. Fascia tissue manipulations are used to treat lumbar fascia in LBP. The effect of fascia tissue manipulations through lumbodorsal skin displacement (SKD) on mobility is inconclusive likely depending on the location and displacement direction of the manipulation. This study aimed to assess whether lumbodorsal SKD affects the flexion -and extension range of motion (ROM), in healthy subjects. Furthermore, we aimed to test the effect of SKD at different locations and directions. Finally, to assess intertester and intratester reliability of SKD. Effects of SKD were tested in a motion capture, single-blinded, longitudinal, experimental study. Sixty-three subjects were randomly assigned to SKD- or sham group. SKD group was subjected to either mediolateral directed SKD during flexion or extension movement, versus a sham. The thoracic, lumbar, and hip angles and finger floor distance were measured to assess the change in ROM. Statistics indicated that the effect size in instantaneously change of flexion -and extension ROM by SKD was large (Effect size: flexion η² _p = 0.12-0.90; extension η² _p = 0.29-0.42). No significant effect was present in the sham condition. Flexion ROM decreased whereas the extension ROM increased, depending on SKD location- and displacement direction (p < 0.05). The ICC indicates a good intertester and intratester reliability (resp. ICC_3,k = 0.81-0.93; ICC_3,1 = 0.70-0.84). Lumbodorsal SKD affects the flexion- and extension spine, pelvis, and hip range of motion. The effects of SKD are direction- and location dependent as well as movement (flexion/extension) specific. Lumbodorsal SKD during flexion and extension may be useful to determine whether or not a patient would benefit from fascia tissue manipulations. Further research is required to obtain insight into the mechanisms via which the SKD affects ROM and muscle activation, in healthy, asymptomatic-LBP, and LBP subjects.

Can a Patient use an App at Home to Measure Knee Range of Motion? Utilizing a Mobile App, Curovate, to Improve Access and Adherence to Knee Range of Motion Measurements

Introduction

Knee range of motion is a critical measure of progress after knee injury and knee surgery. However, many patients do not understand the importance of knee range of motion and most do not have a way to self-monitor their knee range of motion at home. The patient being able to measure their own range of motion can provide improved access to this critical health metric, and could improve adherence with their daily knee range of motion exercises. The purpose of this technical report is to determine if a mobile app, Curovate, can provide reliable measures of knee range of motion compared to standard goniometric measurements.

Procedures

There were four positions of knee flexion and four positions of knee extension each measured twice with a standard goniometer and four different mobile devices with the app Curovate. The reliability and validity of the Curovate app was tested across mobile devices and operating systems and compare to goniometric knee range of motion measurements. A total of 80 measurements were taken. All testing was completed on a healthy 23-year-old male with no knee pathology.

Results

A strong positive correlation, Pearson's r > = 0.9985, for all positions of knee flexion and extension across all four mobile devices as well as each mobile device compared to standard goniometric measurements.

Conclusions

This article presents a unique method for patients to measure their knee range of motion using the mobile app Curovate. Overall, the mobile app, Curovate, was found to have a strong positive correlation across four mobile devices with varying operating systems and compared to goniometric measurements.

Level of evidence

4.