Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Comparison of the Graston technique with instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for increasing dorsiflexion range of motion
Bush HM, Stanek JM, Wooldridge JD, Stephens SL, Barrack JS
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2021 May;30(4):587-594
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

CONTEXT: Limited dorsiflexion (DF) range of motion (ROM) is commonly observed in both the athletic and general populations and is a predisposing factor for lower extremity injury. Graston technique (GT) is a form of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), used commonly to increase ROM. Evidence of the long-term effects of GT on ROM is lacking, particularly comparing the full GT protocol versus IASTM alone. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 6 sessions of the GT or IASTM compared with a control (CON) group for increasing closed-chain DF ROM. DESIGN: Cohort design with randomization. SETTING: Athletic training clinic. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 23 physically active participants (37 limbs) with < 34 degree of DF. Participants' limbs were randomly allocated to the GT, IASTM, or CON group. INTERVENTION: Participants' closed-chain DF ROM (standing and kneeling) were assessed at baseline and 24 to 48 hours following their sixth treatment. Participants in the CON group were measured at baseline and 3 weeks later. The intervention groups received 6 treatments during a 3-week period, whereas the CON group received no treatment. The GT group received a warm-up, instrument application, stretching, and strengthening of the triceps surae. The IASTM group received a warm-up and instrument application. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Closed-chain DF was assessed with a digital inclinometer in standing and kneeling. RESULTS: A significant difference between groups was found in the standing position (p = 0.03) but not in kneeling (p = 0.15). Post hoc testing showed significant improvements in DF in standing following the GT compared with the control (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The GT significantly increases ankle DF following 6 treatments in participants with DF ROM deficits; however, no differences were found between GT and IASTM. The GT may be an effective intervention for clinicians to consider when treating patients with DF deficits.
Copyright Human Kinetics. Reprinted with permission from Human Kinetics (Champaign, IL).

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help