A common musculoskeletal concern: A comparative analysis of therapeutic techniques for hamstring shortness.

Abstract

BackgroundHamstring shortness is a common musculoskeletal issue among young adults. While several therapeutic approaches exist to address this condition, there is ongoing debate regarding the most effective treatment methods.ObjectiveThis single-blind active controlled randomized study aimed to compare the immediate effects of muscle energy technique (MET) and percussive therapy (PT) on individuals with hamstring shortness.MethodsThirty college students age between 18 and 25 years were randomly allocated to either the MET or PT group for the study. All participants were evaluated using two assessments: pre-intervention and immediate post-intervention. The Sit and Reach Test was the primary outcome measure, while hamstring strength, assessed with a MicroFET2^® manual muscle tester, served as the secondary outcome. PT group received a 6-min massage-gun treatment, targeting each hamstring head for 2 min. MET group received anterior and posterior innominate techniques for 3 min each, totaling 6 min.ResultsBoth groups evidenced substantial enhancements in sit and reach scores and muscle strength following the intervention when compared to the baseline values (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of hamstring flexibility and strength scores (p > 0.05).ConclusionsIn conclusion, both MET and PT are effective interventions for improving hamstring flexibility and strength. MET's active mechanism may provide greater immediate benefits, while PT remains a valuable passive alternative. The choice between these techniques should be guided by individual patient needs and therapeutic objectives. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, diverse populations, and combined strategies to enhance clinical applicability and patient outcomes.