The Comparison of Mechanical Percussion Therapy and Manual Stretching on Hamstring Length.

IF 1.6 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2025-04-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.26603/001c.130907
Nathan Nevin, David Boyce, Chris Gambert, Branden Leff, Andrew Batson, Grant Smith
{"title":"The Comparison of Mechanical Percussion Therapy and Manual Stretching on Hamstring Length.","authors":"Nathan Nevin, David Boyce, Chris Gambert, Branden Leff, Andrew Batson, Grant Smith","doi":"10.26603/001c.130907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The interest in and use of mechanical percussive massage treatment devices have grown immensely among clinicians and athletes. One purported benefit of these devices is the improvement of range of motion but whether these devices are more effective than traditional means of increasing muscle extensibility remains unexplored.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine the effect of mechanical percussive massage therapy applied to the hamstrings versus static stretching of the hamstrings on passive knee extension (PKE) range of motion.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Randomized control trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Male Division II NAIA and Division III NCAA football players were recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: control, mechanical percussive massage therapy, or static stretching. Passive hamstring extensibility was quantified in all groups using standard goniometric measurements before and after the intervention by measuring PKE three times in a 90-90 supine position. The mechanical percussive massage therapy group received five minutes of treatment to the hamstrings. The static stretching group received manual stretching of the hamstrings performed in the 90-90 supine position (3 repetitions of 30 seconds with 10-second rest between repetitions). The control group received no treatment. An ANOVA was used to investigate effects of the random interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine male collegiate football players, 37 NCAA Division III and 42 NAIA Division II (mean age 19.8 years +/- 1.2) participated in this study. A significant difference (p < .001) in pre- and post-PKE range of motion was noted for both the percussive mechanical massage therapy (5.8 degrees, SD+/- 3.32) and static stretching (6 degrees, SD+/- 3.29) groups. No significant difference was noted between the two treatment groups. The control group did not demonstrate a significant difference in pre and post-PKE (1.1 degrees, SD +/- 3.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Static stretching and mechanical percussive massage therapy applied to the hamstrings produce significant immediate increases in PKE compared to a control group suggesting that static hamstring stretching, and mechanical percussive massage therapy are both viable options for acutely increasing hamstring extensibility.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>II.</p>","PeriodicalId":47892,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","volume":"20 4","pages":"553-561"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11964683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.130907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The interest in and use of mechanical percussive massage treatment devices have grown immensely among clinicians and athletes. One purported benefit of these devices is the improvement of range of motion but whether these devices are more effective than traditional means of increasing muscle extensibility remains unexplored.

Purpose: To examine the effect of mechanical percussive massage therapy applied to the hamstrings versus static stretching of the hamstrings on passive knee extension (PKE) range of motion.

Study design: Randomized control trial.

Methods: Male Division II NAIA and Division III NCAA football players were recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: control, mechanical percussive massage therapy, or static stretching. Passive hamstring extensibility was quantified in all groups using standard goniometric measurements before and after the intervention by measuring PKE three times in a 90-90 supine position. The mechanical percussive massage therapy group received five minutes of treatment to the hamstrings. The static stretching group received manual stretching of the hamstrings performed in the 90-90 supine position (3 repetitions of 30 seconds with 10-second rest between repetitions). The control group received no treatment. An ANOVA was used to investigate effects of the random interventions.

Results: Seventy-nine male collegiate football players, 37 NCAA Division III and 42 NAIA Division II (mean age 19.8 years +/- 1.2) participated in this study. A significant difference (p < .001) in pre- and post-PKE range of motion was noted for both the percussive mechanical massage therapy (5.8 degrees, SD+/- 3.32) and static stretching (6 degrees, SD+/- 3.29) groups. No significant difference was noted between the two treatment groups. The control group did not demonstrate a significant difference in pre and post-PKE (1.1 degrees, SD +/- 3.62).

Conclusions: Static stretching and mechanical percussive massage therapy applied to the hamstrings produce significant immediate increases in PKE compared to a control group suggesting that static hamstring stretching, and mechanical percussive massage therapy are both viable options for acutely increasing hamstring extensibility.

Level of evidence: II.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
124
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信