Positional transversal release is effective as stretching on range of movement, performance and balance: a cross-over study

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to compare the positional transversal release (PTR) technique to stretching and evaluate the acute effects on range of movement (ROM), performance and balance. Methods Thirty-two healthy individuals (25.3 ± 5.6 years; 68.8 ± 12.5 kg; 172.0 ± 8.8 cm) were tested on four occasions 1 week apart. ROM through a passive straight leg raise, jumping performance through a standing long jump (SLJ) and balance through the Y-balance test were measured. Each measure was assessed before (T0), immediately after (T1) and after 15 min (T2) of the provided intervention. On the first occasion, no intervention was administered (CG). The intervention order was randomized across participants and comprised static stretching (SS), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and the PTR technique. A repeated measure analysis of variance was used for comparisons. Results No differences across the T0 of the four testing sessions were observed. No differences between T0, T1 and T2 were present for the CG session. A significant time × group interaction for ROM in both legs from T0 to T1 (mean increase of 5.4° and 4.9° for right and left leg, respectively) was observed for SS, PNF and the PTR. No differences for all groups were present between T1 and T2. No differences in the SLJ and in measures of balance were observed across interventions. Conclusions The PTR is equally effective as SS and PNF in acutely increasing ROM of the lower limbs. However, the PTR results less time-consuming than SS and PNF. Performance and balance were unaffected by all the proposed interventions.

Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: A systematic review with meta-analysis

“…1 , with a total of 38 studies 26 , 27 , 30 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ( n = 1134 participants, male = 567, female = 415, and 4 studies including 152 participants without information regarding sex; 27 , 39 , 40 , 41 ES: n = 140) meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these, 25 papers compared the effects of stretching to those of alternative activities on ROM; 27 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ...…”

“…Of these, 25 papers compared the effects of stretching to those of alternative activities on ROM; 27 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 70 , 71 , 73 23 studies used static stretching, 27 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 70 , 71 while 5 studies included dynamic or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching variants. 49 , 54 , 58 , 62 , 63 Additionally, 11 studies compared the effects of foam rolling with those of an alternative activity on ROM. 26 , 30 , 49 , 50 , 51 , …”

“… 26 , 30 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 64 , 68 , 69 We included 4 studies (ES: n = 23) 44 , 46 , 47 , 72 investigating the effects of stretching and 3 studies (ES: n = 7) addressing the effects of foam rolling on stiffness, 26 , 53 , 67 while 3 studies (ES: n = 12) addressed the effects on passive peak torque. 46 , 47 , 53 The majority ( n = 37) of the articles addressed muscles of the lower extremities, 26 , 27 , 30 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 while only a single intervention targeted muscles of the upper body.…”

“… 59 Stretching durations performed in the included acute studies ranged from 10 s 57 , 63 to 60 min 39 of static stretching per set, with 1 set 39 to 8 sets. 62 With the included foam rolling studies, set duration ranged from 20 s 69 to 15 min (each set lasting 1 min of unilateral or bilateral rolling), 26 with 1 set 51 to 8 sets. 50 More detailed information is provided in Supplementary Table 1 .…”

“…While blinding of the participants and therapists was never achieved, investigator-blinding was accomplished in 10 studies. 30 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 54 , 61 , 62 , 71 , 73 Only 3 studies concealed the allocation 45 , 54 , 58 and adhered to the application of the intention-to-treat principle, 45 , 54 , 73 respectively. In 6 studies, 26 , 27 , 42 , 46 , 56 , 58 the groups were not considered similar at baseline with respect to the most important prognostic factors.…”