scholarly journals The Effectiveness of PNF Versus Static Stretching on Increasing Hip-Flexion Range of Motion

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Landon Lempke ◽  
Rebecca Wilkinson ◽  
Caitlin Murray ◽  
Justin Stanek
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Active Population ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Methods And Techniques ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
Joint Range

Clinical Scenario:Stretching is applied for the purposes of injury prevention, increasing joint range of motion (ROM), and increasing muscle extensibility. Many researchers have investigated various methods and techniques to determine the most effective way to increase joint ROM and muscle extensibility. Despite the numerous studies conducted, controversy still remains within clinical practice and the literature regarding the best methods and techniques for stretching.Focused Clinical Question:Is proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching more effective than static stretching for increasing hamstring muscle extensibility through increased hip ROM or increased knee extension angle (KEA) in a physically active population?Summary of Key Findings:Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. All 5 studies were randomized control trials examining mobility of the hamstring group. The studies measured hamstring ROM in a variety of ways. Three studies measured active KEA, 1 study measured passive KEA, and 1 study measured hip ROM via the single-leg raise test. Of the 5 studies, 1 study found greater improvements using PNF over static stretching for increasing hip flexion, and the remaining 4 studies found no significant difference between PNF stretching and static stretching in increasing muscle extensibility, active KEA, or hip ROM.Clinical Bottom Line:PNF stretching was not demonstrated to be more effective at increasing hamstring extensibility compared to static stretching. The literature reviewed suggests both are effective methods for increasing hip-flexion ROM.Strength of Recommendation:Using level 2 evidence and higher, the results show both static and PNF stretching effectively increase ROM; however, one does not appear to be more effective than the other.

Comparison between 4 weeks passive static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation programmes on neuromuscular properties of hamstring muscles: a randomised clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Anelize Cini ◽  
Gabriela Souza de Vasconcelos ◽  
Milena Caumo Soligo ◽  
Cassiele Felappi ◽  
Rodrigo Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Hamstring Muscles ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hip Flexion

Background/aims Studies have shown the efficacy of stretching to increase the hip flexion range of motion but studies regarding its effects are not unanimous about the most efficient technique. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of two stretching techniques on the neuromuscular properties of the hamstring muscles. Methods A total of 18 women (aged 24 ± 2.52 years old) participated, and were divided into three groups: a control group, a passive static stretching group and a propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group. Evaluations of variables of the hamstring muscles were performed before and after the training period. The intervention was carried out for 30 seconds, three times a week for a total of 4 weeks. Results A significant difference was found in the range of motion in the passive static stretching group (pre=80.8° [±11.0] and post=94.5° [±10.2]; t(5)=−3.755; P=0.013) and in concentric torque (passive static stretching group – pre=66.3 Nm [±12.9] and post=70.0 Nm [±8.1]; t(5)=−1.267; P=0.023; propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching group – pre=79.1 Nm [±12.7] and post=83.5 Nm [±11.6]; t(5)=−1.917; P=0.014; control group – pre=71.1 Nm [±10.1] and post=74.1 Nm [±14.6]; t(5)=−1.275; P=0.003). Conclusions Passive static stretching was superior to propioceptive neuromuscular facilitation when comparing the increase range of motion in hip flexion, even without neural and structural changes in hamstring muscles after a 4-week period.

Chronic Stretching During 2 Weeks of Immobilization Decreases Loss of Girth, Peak Torque, and Dorsiflexion Range of Motion

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Wilson ◽  
Bryan Christensen ◽  
Kara Gange ◽  
Christopher Todden ◽  
Harlene Hatterman-Valenti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Athletic Training ◽  
Peak Torque ◽  
Muscle Size ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Familiarization Period ◽  
Joint Range

Context: Chronic plantarflexor (PF) stretching during ankle immobilization helps preserve calf girth, plantarflexion peak torque, and ankle dorsiflexion (DF) motion. Immobilization can lead to decreases in muscle peak torque, muscle size, and joint range of motion (ROM). Recurrent static stretching during a period of immobilization may reduce the extent of these losses. Objective: To investigate the effects of chronic static stretching on PF peak torque, calf girth, and DF ROM after 2 weeks of ankle immobilization. Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: Athletic training facility. Participants: A total of 36 healthy college-aged (19.81 [2.48]) females. Interventions: Subjects were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: control group, immobilized group (IM), and immobilized plus stretching (IM+S) group. Each group participated in a familiarization period, a pretest, and, 2 weeks later, a posttest. The IM group and IM+S group wore the Aircast Foam Pneumatic Walker for 2 weeks on the left leg. During this time, the IM+S group participated in a stretching program, which consisted of two 10-minute stretching procedures each day for the 14 days. Main Outcome Measures: One-way analysis of variance was used to determine differences in the change of ankle girth, PF peak torque, and DF ROM between groups with an α level of <.05. Results: A significant difference was noted between groups in girth (F2,31 = 5.64, P = .01), DF ROM (F2,31 = 26.13, P < .001), and PF peak torque (F2,31 = 7.74, P = .002). Post hoc testing also showed a significance difference between change in calf girth of the control group compared with the IM group (P = .01) and a significant difference in change of peak torque in the IM+S group and the IM group (P = .001). Also, a significant difference was shown in DF ROM between the control group and IM+S group (P = .01), the control group and the IM group (P < .001), and the IM+S group and the IM group (P < .001). Conclusion: Chronic static stretching during 2 weeks of immobilization may decrease the loss of calf girth, ankle PF peak torque, and ankle DF ROM.

Changes in Hamstring Range of Motion After Neurodynamic Sciatic Sliders: A Critically Appraised Topic

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-315
Author(s):  
Robert J. Bonser ◽  
Christy L. Hancock ◽  
Bethany L. Hansberger ◽  
Rick A. Loutsch ◽  
Eric K. Stanford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Neural System ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Common Condition ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Active Population ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Hamstring Flexibility

Clinical Scenario:Hamstring tightness is a common condition leading to dysfunctional or restricted movement that is often treated with stretching. Neurodynamics has been proposed as an alternative to stretching by targeting the neural system rather than muscle tissue.Focused Clinical Question:In an active population, what is the effect of using neurodynamic sliders compared with stretching on traditional measures of range of motion (ROM)?Summary of Key Findings:The authors of a well-designed study found that neurodynamic sliders were more effective than static stretching, while the authors of 2 less-well-designed studies reported no difference with static stretching or that proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching was more effective than neurodynamic sliders.Clinical Bottom Line:Evidence exists to support the use of neurodynamic sliders to increase measures of hamstring ROM in patients who present with limited hamstring flexibility; however, the effectiveness of neurodynamic sliders compared with traditional stretching is inconclusive.Strength of Recommendation:Grade B evidence exists that neurodynamic sliders perform as well as traditional stretching techniques at increasing measures of hamstring ROM in patients with limited hamstring flexibility.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Static Stretching Versus Combined Static and Ballistic Stretching in Active Knee Range of Motion

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Blackhurst ◽  
James Peterson ◽  
Valerie Herzog ◽  
Ericka Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Homogeneity Of Variance ◽  
History Of ◽  
P 351 ◽  
Post Hoc

Background: There is continued controversy related to flexibility gains from different stretching protocols and within single protocols. Stretching methods include static, ballistic, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF). A combination of stretching methods may be an improved way to increase active knee range of motion (ROM). This study evaluated a single program formulated with static and ballistic components. Objective: To compare active knee ROM following stretching programs which either included combined static and ballistic stretching (CSBS) or static stretching (SS) alone. It was hypothesized that CSBS would show a greater increase in active knee ROM than SS. Setting: The pre- and post- measurements were performed in a laboratory. Subjects were randomly assigned to either treatment group or a non-stretching control group and given written instructions on how to perform their designated protocol at home. Subjects: Forty-three (33M, 10F) healthy collegiate aged participants (24.0 + 3.69 yrs, 176.21 + 10.0 cm, 78.15 + 12.93 kg) with no history of injury to the lower extremity or low back for the previous 6 months were eligible to participate in the study. Interventions: Two treatment groups either performed SS or CSBS for 30 seconds on each leg, twice a day for 2 weeks. All subjects but 3 provided both legs, and each leg was evaluated separately, providing 83 total measurements. Main Outcome Measures: A Johnson Digital Inclinometer was used to measure active knee extension. A mixed ANOVA with a Tukey post hoc test was used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in active knee ROM between groups at the pre-test, F(2,80)=1.062, p=.351, partial ƞ2=.026 (SS: 52.56 + 7.50º, CSBS: 49.84 + 8.91⁰, control: 49.39 + 10.09⁰). There was a statistically significant difference in active knee ROM between groups at the post-test, F(2,80)=29.034, p .05). There was homogeneity of covariance’s, as assessed by Box's test of equality of covariance matrices (p = .076). There was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene's test of homogeneity of variance (p>.05). Conclusions: SS and CSBS are equally effective for improving active knee ROM. A trend indicating CSBS showing only slightly greater differences may be due to limited time allowed to master the CSBS method, with no supervision during stretching sessions.

Does soft tissue mobilization assist static stretching to improve hamstring flexibility? A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shibili Nuhmani
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Repeated Measure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hamstring Flexibility ◽  
Soft Tissue Mobilization ◽  
Experimental Group

AbstractObjectivesObjective of the study is to investigate whether Soft tissue mobilization (STM) can assist with static stretching to improve hamstring flexibly.MethodsThe design of the study was repeated measure design. The study was conducted at the physical therapy laboratory of Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi. Participants included 78 healthy males with hamstring tightness, randomly assigned to either the control group (static stretching) or the experimental group (STM and static stretching). The experimental group received five sets of four different STM techniques, followed by two sets of 30-s static stretches 3 days per week over the course of 12 weeks. The control group received 5 min of sham ultrasound with an inactive probe prior to static stretching. Active knee extension test (AKE) was the outcome measure.ResultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in AKE compared with the baseline measurements. With ingroup analysis showed a significant difference in AKE across all measured time periods (weeks 4, 8, and 12) with pre-test in both groups (p<0.05). No significant difference in AKE improvement was found between groups (p>0.05).ConclusionThe results of this study show that STM prior to static stretching does not significantly improve hamstring flexibility among healthy individuals. Although this study cannot be generalized, the results may be useful for evidence-based practice in the management of hamstring tightness.

scholarly journals Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3631
Author(s):  
Alfonso Penichet-Tomas ◽  
Basilio Pueo ◽  
Marta Abad-Lopez ◽  
Jose M. Jimenez-Olmedo
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Foam Rolling ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Alternating Treatment Design ◽  
Stroke Amplitude ◽  
Treatment Design ◽  
Over Time

Rowers’ anthropometric characteristics and flexibility are fundamental to increase stroke amplitude and optimize power transfer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of foam rolling and static stretching on the range of motion over time. Eight university rowers (24.8 ± 3.4 yrs., height 182.3 ± 6.5 cm, body mass 79.3 ± 4.6 kg) participated in an alternating treatment design study with two-way repeated measures ANOVA. The sit and reach test was used to measure the range of motion. Both in the foam rolling and in the static stretching method, a pre-test (T0), a post-test (T1), and a post-15-min test (T2) were performed. A significant effect was observed on the range of motion over time (p < 0.001), but not for time x method interaction (p = 0.680). Significant differences were found between T0 and T1 with foam rolling and static stretching (p < 0.001, d = 0.4); p < 0.001, d = 0.6). The differences between T0 and T2 were also significant with both methods (p = 0.001, d = 0.4; p < 0.001, d = 0.4). However, no significant difference was observed between T1 and T2 (p = 1.000, d = 0.1; p = 0.089, d = 0.2). Foam roller and static stretching seem to be effective methods to improve the range of motion but there seems to be no differences between them.

Relationship Between Weightbearing Ankle Dorsiflexion Passive Range of Motion and Ankle Kinematics During Gait

2017 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-Hyeok Kang ◽  
Jae-Seop Oh
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Knee Extension ◽  
Ankle Dorsiflexion ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Ankle Kinematics ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Analysis System ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Paired T Test

Background: Measurement of weightbearing ankle dorsiflexion (DF) passive range of motion (PROM) has been suggested as a way to estimate ankle kinematics during gait; however, no previous study has demonstrated the relationship between ankle DF during gait and ankle DF PROM with knee extension. We examine the relationship between maximum ankle DF during gait and nonweightbearing and weightbearing ankle DF PROM with knee extension. Methods: Forty physically active individuals (mean ± SD age, 21.63 ± 1.73 years) participated in this study. Ankle DF PROM with knee extension was measured in the nonweightbearing and weightbearing conditions; maximum ankle DF during gait was assessed using a three-dimensional motion analysis system. The relationship between each variable was calculated using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, and the difference in ankle DF PROM between the nonweightbearing and weightbearing conditions was analyzed using a paired t test. Results: The weightbearing measurement (r = 0.521; P &lt; .001) for ankle DF PROM showed a greater correlation with maximum ankle DF during gait than did the nonweightbearing measurement (r = 0.245; P = .029). Ankle DF PROM was significantly greater in the weightbearing than in the nonweightbearing condition (P &lt; .001) despite a significant correlation between the two measurements (r = 0.402; P &lt; .001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that nonweightbearing and weightbearing measurements of ankle DF PROM with knee extension should not be used interchangeably and that weightbearing ankle DF PROM with the knee extended is more appropriate for estimating ankle DF during gait.

The Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Flexibility of the Lower Extremity: A Critically Appraised Topic

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine M. Feldbauer ◽  
Brittany A. Smith ◽  
Bonnie Van Lunen
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Use Of Self ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Myofascial Release ◽  
Low Level

Clinical Question:Does self-myofascial release improve lower extremity fexibility or range of motion in physically active individuals?Clinical Bottom Line:There is low-level evidence to support the use of self-my-ofascial release to increase range of motion and fexibility in the lower extremity.

Effects of Different Heating Modalities on Hip Flexion Passive Range of Motion

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 27-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Hanson ◽  
James Day
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Main Outcome Measure ◽  
Therapeutic Modalities ◽  
Tissue Heating ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
Hot Pack

Context:Therapeutic modalities are routinely administered to increase fexibility, but the relative effects of different modes of tissue heating on passive range of motion (PROM) are unknown.Objective:To assess the relative effects of active exercise on a stationary bicycle, moist hot pack treatment, and warm whirlpool treatment on hip fexion PROM.Design:Repeated measures.Subjects:24 males and 20 females between the ages 18 and 24 years.Main Outcome MeasureHip fexion PROM measured by an inclinometer.Results:Repeated measures analysis of variance identified a significant difference among the heating methods, F(1, 43) = 32.41;p< .001. Active exercise produced the greatest change in hip fexion PROM.Conclusions:All three treatment methods produced an increase in hip fexion PROM, but active exercise produced a significantly greater increase than moist hot pack and warm whirlpool treatments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document