Acute Effects of Gastrocnemius/Soleus Self-Myofascial Release Versus Dynamic Stretching on Closed-Chain Dorsiflexion

Abstract

Context: Limited ankle dorsiflexion (DF) range of motion has been correlated with decreased flexibility of the gastrocnemius/soleus complex. Decreased ankle DF range of motion can lead to an increase in lower-extremity injuries, for example, acute ankle sprains, Achilles tendinopathy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a single application of the intervention to the gastrocnemius/soleus complex via multidirectional self-myofascial release using a foam roller, multiplanar dynamic stretch performed in downward dog, or a combination of both techniques acutely improved ankle DF. Design: Subjects were assigned to groups via random card selection. Investigators provided verbal cues as needed to yield correct performance of interventions. Both interventions were performed twice for 1 minute using a dynamic walking rest of 30.48 m at a self-selected pace between interventions. Statistical analyses were completed using a 1-way analysis of variance, at α level ≤ .05. Setting: A convenience sample study. Participants: A total of 42 asymptomatic physical therapy students (18 females and 24 males) with mean age of 26.12 (4.03) years volunteered to participate. Interventions: Multidirectional self-myofascial release using a foam roller, multiplanar dynamic stretch performed in downward dog, or a combination of both techniques. Main Outcome Measures: Weight-bearing right ankle DF measurements were recorded in centimeters using a forward lunge technique (intraclass correlation coefficient = .98, .97, and .96). Results: Data analysis revealed no significant difference between the 3 groups in all pre–post measurements (P = .82). Mean (SD) measurements from pretest to posttest for myofascial release, dynamic stretching, and combination interventions were 0.479 (0.7) cm, 0.700 (0.7) cm, and 0.907 (1.4) cm, respectively. Conclusion: Until further studies are conducted, the selection of technique to increase ankle DF range of motion should be based on each individual patient’s ability, preference, and response to treatment.

Influence of different knee and ankle ranges of motion on the elasticity of triceps surae muscles, Achilles tendon, and plantar fascia

“…This result can be explained by anatomical factors. First, not only were the cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume of the MG larger than those of the LG 37 , but the MG was also longer than the LG, allowing it to extend more distally in the calf 9 . Second, the MG and LG have the same function in plantar flexion, but they have different contribution levels because the MG provides more than 70% of the force 3 .…”

“…It has been reported that the incidence rate of Achilles tendinitis is 2.35‰ in the general population 7 , while the lifetime prevalence of plantar fasciitis is approximately 10% in the general population 8 . Pain caused by Achilles tendinitis and plantar fasciitis can reduce the use intensity of the affected foot, decrease the flexibility of muscle/tendon, and ultimately, lead to muscle/tendon contractures 1,[9][10][11] . Muscle/tendon contractures are the most obvious symptoms and are characterized by decreased muscle lengths/tendon lengths and increased passive stiffness values.…”

Selective Effects of Manual Massage and Foam Rolling on Perceived Recovery and Performance: Current Knowledge and Future Directions Toward Robotic Massages

“…It is also used after exercise induced muscle damage and FR recovery (Pearcey et al, 2015;Correira, 2016;Casanova et al, 2017;Drinkwater et al, 2019; Table 5). Likewise, just like MM, functional tests, such as the sit-andreach or weight-bearing lunge tests, are usual tools to assess the effectiveness of FR on ROM (Sullivan et al, 2013;Halperin et al, 2014;Grieve et al, 2015;Peacock et al, 2015;Škarabot et al, 2015;Kelly and Beardsley, 2016;Patel et al, 2016;Boguszewski et al, 2017;Grabow et al, 2017;Jung et al, 2017;Paz et al, 2017;Sagiroglu, 2017;Garcia-Gutiérrez et al, 2018;Phillips et al, 2018;Guillot et al, 2019;Pathania and Muragod, 2019;Somers et al, 2019;Williams and Selkow, 2019; Table 6). Other clinical examinations, such as the Thomas test or the straight leg raise test, are also regularly used to quantify flexibility with manual or electric goniometers after FR (MacDonald et al, 2014;Mohr et al, 2014;Cho et al, 2015;Su et al, 2017;Do et al, 2018;Killen et al, 2018;Madoni et al, 2018;Guillot et al, 2019;Jeong et al, 2019;Kyranoudis et al, 2019;Lim and Park, 2019;Oranchuk et al, 2019; Table 6).…”

Efectos del foam roller sobre el rango de movimiento, el dolor y el rendimiento neuromuscular: revisión sistemática (Foam roller effects on joint range of motion, pain, and neuromuscular performance: a systematic review)

“…el ROM disminuyó presentando aún así una mejora de 2.5º respecto al baseline. En este otro estudio nos mostraron un aumento en el ROM de tobillo con una aplicación de 1 min en gastrocnemios de 0.48 ± 0.77cm en test knee to wall distance (Somers, et al 2019). Otro estudio mostró un incremento de 7.8º (15%) en el ROM de cadera con una aplicación de 5 series de 1 min en cuádriceps tras la aparición de DOMS (Romero-Moraleda, et al, 2019).…”

“…A pesar de la amplia diversidad en las intervenciones utilizadas en función del tiempo de aplicación (Aune, et al, 2019;Somers, et al 2019), el grupo o grupos musculares sobre los que se aplica el tratamiento (Romero-Moraleda et al, 2019;Smith et al, 2018), la densidad del FR (Cheatham & Stull 2018), la presencia de vibración, o no, (Cheatham, Stull, & Kolber, 2019;Romero-Moraleda et al, 2019) y el tiempo que pasa desde la intervención hasta la evalaución (Su et al, 2017) la mayoría de investigaciones presentan mejoras en la amplitud de movimiento y la disminución de la percepción de dolor tras el tratamiento con FR tras el ejercicio.…”