scholarly journals A Comparison of Self-administered Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation to Static Stretching on Range of Motion and Flexibility

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Wicke ◽  
Kamar Gainey ◽  
Michael Figueroa
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation

Immediate effects of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching of hamstring muscles on straight leg raise, craniovertebral angle, and cervical spine range of motion in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness: A prospective randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eun-Dong Jeong ◽  
Chang-Yong Kim ◽  
Nack-Hwan Kim ◽  
Hyeong-Dong Kim
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
T Test ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Straight Leg Raise ◽  
Pain Patients ◽  
Group Effects

BACKGROUND: The cranio-cervical flexion exercise and sub-occipital muscle inhibition technique have been used to improve a forward head posture among neck pain patients with straight leg raise (SLR) limitation. However, little is known about the cranio-vertebral angle (CVA) and cervical spine range of motion (CROM) after applying stretching methods to the hamstring muscle. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effects of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on SLR, CVA, and CROM in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness. METHODS: 64 subjects were randomly allocated to the static stretching (n1= 32) or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (n2= 32) stretching group. The SLR test was performed to measure the hamstring muscle’s flexibility and tightness between the two groups, with CROM and CVA also being measured. The paired t-test was used to compare all the variables within each group before and after the intervention. The independent t-test was used to compare the two groups before and after the stretching exercise. RESULTS: There were no between-group effects for any outcome variables (P> 0.05). However, all SLR, CVA, and CROM outcome variables were significantly improved within-group (P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were no between-group effects for any outcome variable; however, SLR, CVA, and CROM significantly improved within-group after the one-session intervention in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness.

Changes in Hamstring Range of Motion Following Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching Compared With Static Stretching: A Critically Appraised Topic

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Hancock ◽  
Bethany Hansberger ◽  
Rick Loutsch ◽  
Eric Stanford ◽  
Ali Zeigel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation

Assessing Cryotherapy and Moist Heat Pack Application With and Without the Use of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation-Contract Relax Stretching

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Amy Mauro ◽  
Blaine C. Long
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Detectable Change ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Moist Heat ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Hip Flexion ◽  
All Treatment

Cryotherapy or moist heat packs (MHP) are often used prior to static stretching to enhance range of motion (ROM). Their influence on ROM when applied prior to proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation-contract relax (PNF-CR) stretching is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine if an ice bag or MHP influenced passive hip flexion ROM prior to PNF-CR stretching. When compared to the control, all treatment groups had a large effect. Participants receiving MHP PNF-CR, PNF-CR only, and ice bag PNF-CR met or exceeded our meaningful detectable change, thus demonstrating increased ROM. Those receiving an ice bag or MHP only did not demonstrate improvements and failed to present with ROM improvements.

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.

The Effect of Sling Exercise and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation on Foot Pressure and Range of Motion after Total Knee Replacement - Case Study -

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 1335-1343
Author(s):  
Dong-Hun Seong ◽  
Seong-Deok Yoon ◽  
Sang-Hyun Kim ◽  
Ju-Sung Jang ◽  
Suk-Ho Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Foot Pressure ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Total Knee

Influence of stress relaxation and load during static stretching on the range of motion and muscle–tendon passive stiffness

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taizan Fukaya ◽  
Masatoshi Nakamura ◽  
Shigeru Sato ◽  
Ryosuke Kiyono ◽  
Kaoru Yahata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stress Relaxation ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Passive Stiffness

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.

Comparison of effects of static, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and Mulligan stretching on hip flexion range of motion: a randomized controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meric Senduran Yıldırım ◽  
Seher Ozyürek ◽  
Ozge Celiker Tosun ◽  
Sevil Uzer ◽  
Nihal Gelecek
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Hip Flexion

Efficacy of Static Stretching and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretch on Hamstrings Length After a Single Session

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1586-1591 ◽  
Author(s):  
John OʼHora ◽  
Abigail Cartwright ◽  
Clive D Wade ◽  
Alan D Hough ◽  
Gary LK Shum
Keyword(s):  
Static Stretching ◽  
Single Session ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation

scholarly journals The Effects of Massage and Static Stretching on Cervical Range of Motion in Their 20s of Normal Adult

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 4346-4353
Author(s):  
Won-An Kwon ◽  
Dong-Dae Kim ◽  
Jae-Hong Lee
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Normal Adult ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Cervical Range Of Motion
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document