Context: Instrument-assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) is a therapeutic intervention used by clinicians to identify and treat myofascial dysfunction or pathology. However, little is known about the amount of force used by clinicians during an IASTM treatment and how it compares to reports of force in the current literature. Objective: To quantify the range of force applied by trained clinicians during a simulated IASTM treatment scenario. Design: Experimental. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: Eleven licensed clinicians (physical therapist = 2, chiropractor = 2, and athletic trainer = 7) with professional IASTM training participated in the study. The participants reported a range of credentialed experience from 1 to 15 years (mean = 7 [4.7] y; median = 6 y). Intervention: Participants performed 15 one-handed unidirectional sweeping strokes with each of the 5 instruments for a total of 75 data points each. Force data were collected from a force plate with an attached skin simulant during a hypothetical treatment scenario. Main Outcome Measures: Peak force and average forces for individual strokes across all instruments were identified. Averages for these forces were calculated for all participants combined, as well as for individual participants. Results: The average of peak forces produced by our sample of trained clinicians was 6.7 N and the average mean forces was 4.5 N. Across individual clinicians, average peak forces ranged from 2.6 to 14.0 N, and average mean forces ranged from 1.6 to 10.0 N. Conclusions: The clinicians in our study produced a broad range of IASTM forces. The observed forces in our study were similar to those reported in prior research examining an IASTM treatment to the gastrocnemius of healthy individuals and greater than what has been reported as effective in treating delayed onset muscle soreness. Our data can be used by researchers examining clinically relevant IASTM treatment force on patient outcomes.
Clinicians utilize instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) to identify and treat myofascial dysfunction or pathology. Currently, little is known regarding the ability of clinicians to provide similar IASTM forces across treatment sessions. The authors’ purpose was to quantify clinician reliability of force application during a simulated IASTM treatment scenario. Five licensed athletic trainers with previous IASTM training (mean credential experience = 5.2 [4.3] y; median = 5 y) performed 15 one-handed unidirectional sweeping strokes with each of the 3 instruments on 2 consecutive days for a total of 90 data points each. The IASTM stroke application was analyzed for peak normal forces (Fpeak) and mean normal forces (Fmean) by stroke across 2 sessions. The authors’ findings indicate IASTM trained clinicians demonstrated sufficient Fpeak and Fmean reliability across a treatment range during a one-handed IASTM treatment. Future research should examine if IASTM applied at different force ranges influences patient outcomes.
Clinical Scenario: Joint instability is a common condition that often stems from inadequate muscle activation and results in precarious movement patterns. When clinicians attempt to mechanically treat the unstable joint rather than attending to the underlying cause of the instability, patient outcomes may suffer. The use of kinesiology tape (KT) on an unstable joint has been proposed to aid in improving lower-extremity neuromuscular control. Clinical Question: Does KT improve factors of neuromuscular control in an athletic population when compared with no-tape or nonelastic taping techniques? Summary of Key Findings: The current literature was searched, and 5 randomized controlled studies were selected comparing the effects of KT with no-tape or nonelastic taping techniques on lower-extremity neuromuscular control in an athletic population. Primary findings suggest KT is not more effective than no-tape or nonelastic tape conditions at improving lower-extremity neuromuscular control in a healthy population. Clinical Bottom Line: The current evidence suggests that KT is ineffective for improving neuromuscular control at the ankle compared with nonelastic tape or no-tape conditions. KT was also found to be ineffective at improving hip and knee kinematics in healthy runners and cyclists. However, preliminary research has demonstrated improved neuromuscular control in a population displaying excessive knee valgus during a drop jump landing, after the application of KT. Clinicians should be cautious of these conflicting results and apply the best available evidence to their evaluation of the patient’s status. Strength of Recommendation: There is grade B evidence that the use of KT on an athletic population does not improve biomechanical measures of ankle stability. There is inconclusive, grade B evidence that KT improves neuromuscular control at the knee in symptomatic populations.
Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is a common intervention among clinicians. Despite the popularity, little is known about the forces applied by the clinician with the instruments during treatment. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the forces applied by trained clinicians using IASTM instruments during a simulated treatment. Eleven IASTM trained (Graston Technique, Técnica Gavilán, or RockBlades) clinicians (Physical Therapist = 2, Chiropractor = 2, Athletic Trainer = 7) participated in the study. Each clinician performed 75 two-handed strokes distributed evenly across five different IASTM instruments on a skin simulant attached to a force plate. IASTM stroke application was analyzed for peak normal forces (Fpeak) and mean normal forces (Fmean) by stroke. We observed an average Fpeak of 8.9N and Fmean of 6.0N across all clinicians and instruments. Clinicians and researchers may use the descriptive values as a reference for application of IASTM in practice and research.
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine whether the forces used by trained clinicians during a simulated instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilisation (IASTM) treatment varied across five different instruments during one-handed and two-handed IASTM grips.MethodsNine athletic trainers who previously completed IASTM training and used the technique in professional practice were included in the study. A skin simulant was attached to a force plate and used to evaluate force production during a simulated IASTM treatment scenario. Peak (Fpeak) and mean (Fmean) forces were recorded for both one-handed and two-handed grips for each participant across the five instruments. Data were analysed using separate 2 (grip type) × 5 (IASTM instrument) repeated measures analysis of variance for both Fpeakand Fmean.ResultsData for Fpeakdemonstrated a significant main effect for grip type (F(1, 8)=46.39, p<0.001,ηp2=0.34), instrument (F(4, 32)=4.61, p=0.005,ηp2=0.06) and interaction (F(2, 16)=10.23, p=0.001,ηp2=0.07). For Fmean, there was also a statistically significant main effect for grip type (F(1, 8)=60.47, p<0.001,ηp2=0.32), instrument (F(4, 32)=4.03, p=0.009,ηp2=0.06) and interaction (F(2, 19)=7.92, p=0.002,ηp2=0.06).ConclusionsClinicians produced greater IASTM forces when applying a two-handed grip than a one-handed grip. Instrument weight may matter less than instrument shape, size and bevelling for influencing force production as instrument length appears to influence force production when using one-handed or two-handed grips. Although the effects of IASTM force variation on patient outcomes remains unknown, these findings may be considered by clinicians when making instrument and grip choices.
Context: Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is a popular myofascial treatment utilized by health care professionals. Currently, there is a lack of research on the effects of a light pressure IASTM treatment on the forearm region. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a light pressure IASTM technique at different application rates on grip strength and muscle stiffness. This study was considered exploratory with the goal of establishing methodology for future controlled studies. Design: Observational pretest and posttest clinical study. Methods: Twenty-six healthy adults underwent one light pressure IASTM treatment to their dominant forearm muscles. Participants were allocated to 2 groups of 13 based upon treatment rate: 60 beats per minute and 120 beats per minute. Participants were tested pretreatment and posttreatment for grip strength and tissue stiffness via diagnostic ultrasound. One-way analyses of covariance were used to assess group differences posttreatment for grip strength and tissue stiffness. Results: Statistically significant posttreatment changes for grip strength and tissue stiffness were not found. Despite the nonstatistical significance, there were small decreases in grip strength and tissue stiffness. Faster (120 beats/min) IASTM application may have produced clinically meaningful decreases in grip strength along with a small decrease in tissue stiffness. Conclusions: This report helps to establish methodology for future controlled studies on this topic. Sports medicine professionals should consider these results as exploratory and interpret them with caution. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and begin to postulate possible neurophysiological mechanisms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.