Evaluation of intra-subject difference in hamstring flexibility in patients with low back pain: An exploratory study

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Radwan ◽  
Kyle A. Bigney ◽  
Haily N. Buonomo ◽  
Michael W. Jarmak ◽  
Shannon M. Moats ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 400-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney Williams ◽  
Noelle M. Selkow

Context: Decreased hamstring flexibility can lead to a plethora of musculoskeletal injuries, including low back pain, hamstring strains, and patellofemoral pain. Lack of flexibility may be the result of myofascial adhesions. The fascia connected to the hamstrings is part of the superficial back line that runs from the cranium to the plantar aspect of the foot. Any disruption along this chain may limit the flexibility of the hamstring. Objective: To investigate if self-myofascial release (SMR) of the plantar surface of the foot in addition to the hamstring group was more effective at improving the flexibility of the hamstrings when compared with either intervention alone. Design: Cross-over study. Setting: Athletic training facility. Participants: Fifteen college students (5 males and 10 females; age: 20.9 [1.4] y, height: 173.1 [10.3] cm, mass: 80.0 [24.9] kg) who were not older than 30, with no history of low back pain or injury within the past 6 months, no history of leg pain or injury within the past 6 months, no current signs or symptoms of cervical or lumbar radicular pain, no current complaint of numbness or tingling in the lower-extremity, and no history of surgery in the lower-extremity or legs. Interventions: Each participant received each intervention separated by at least 96 hours in a randomized order: hamstring foam rolling, lacrosse ball on the plantar surface of the foot, and a combination of both. Main Outcome Measures: The sit-and-reach test evaluated hamstring flexibility of each participant before and immediately after each intervention. Results: There were no significant differences found among the SMR techniques on sit-and-reach distance (F2,41 = 2.7, P = .08, ). However, at least 20% of participants in each intervention improved sit-and-reach distance by 2.5 cm. Conclusions: SMR may improve sit-and-reach distance, but one technique of SMR does not seem to be superior to another.


2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 657-658
Author(s):  
Stéphane Genevay ◽  
Sana Boudabbous ◽  
Federico Balagué

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shyamal Koley ◽  
Neha Likhi

1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Peyrot ◽  
Philip M. Moody ◽  
H. Jean Wiese

Objective: Based upon three models of etiology and adjustment in CLBP, predictions were made about the variables that were expected to differentiate organic and nonorganic patients, including: psychological distress (anxiety, depression, stress, alienation), pain condition and treatment, and general health. Method: Patients from a medical school orthopedic clinic with an organic ( N = 58) or a nonorganic ( N = 33) diagnosis for chronic low back pain (CLBP) were compared on medical, psychological and sociodemographic variables. Results: Nonorganic patients exhibited greater emotional distress, contrary to the biogenic model, and nonorganic patients did not exhibit more somatic complaints, contrary to the psychogenic model. Both patterns were consistent with the sociogenic model; nonorganic patients were more distressed, but not because of a greater tendency to somatize. Moreover, modeling was not supported as an explanation of the pain and distress among these patients. Conclusions: Social anomie may explain why patients without a medically diagnosable cause for their pain are more psychologically distressed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document