Myofascial Release for the Treatment of Tension-Type, Cervicogenic Headache or Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of myofascial release (MFR) techniques on the intensity of headache pain and associated disability in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), cervicogenic headache (CGH), or migraine. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Eight databases were searched on September 15, 2023, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang Database. The risk of bias was evaluated utilizing the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Results: Pooled results showed that MFR intervention significantly reduces pain intensity [SMD = -2.01, 95% CI (-2.98, -1.03), I2 = 90%, P < 0.001] and improves disability [SMD = -1.3, 95% CI (-1.82, -0.79), I2 = 74%, P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis based on the type of headache revealed significant reductions in pain intensity for CGH [SMD = -2.01, 95% CI (-2.73, -1.29), I2 = 63%, P < 0.001], TTH [SMD = -0.86, 95% CI (-1.52, -0.20), I2 = 50%, P=0.01] and migraine [SMD = -6.52, 95% CI (-8.15, -4.89), P < 0.001] and in disability for CGH [SMD = -1.45, 95% CI (-2.07, -0.83), I2 = 0%, P < 0.001]; TTH [SMD = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.32, -0.65), I2 = 0%, P < 0.001] but not migraine [SMD = -2.44, 95% CI (-6.04, 1.16), I2 = 97%, P=0.18]. Conclusion: The meta-analysis results indicate that MFR intervention can significantly alleviate pain and disability in TTH and CGH. For migraine, however, the results were inconsistent, and there was only moderate quality evidence of disability improvement for TTH and CGH. In contrast, the quality of other evidence was low or very low.

The myofascial release as neuromotor support to improve the ineffective sucking ability in term infants: a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding plays a primary role in the events that characterize the development of the relationship between a mother and her newborn. However, this essential process sometimes does not fully cover the nutritional requirements of the newborn due to altered biomechanical sucking skills. In this context, adequate osteopathic treatment associated with neuromotor facilitation techniques could play a promoting role. METHODS: This study evaluated the effect of the osteopathic approach using myofascial release on 26 infants with ineffective sucking ability, identified by the POFRAS scale and LATCH score, compared with 26 untreated similar infants. After the procedure was initially performed in the hospital, the strategy based on basic neuromotor patterns was taught to the parents to be continued at home. The effects were measured at hospital discharge, during the first outpatient visit, which occurred after about seven days, and at one month of life. RESULTS: The number of valid and continuous suctions, initially less than five per feed in both groups, at the first outpatient check-up was significantly higher (p < 0.00001) in the treated group. Exclusive breastfeeding, initially present in all enrolled children, was maintained mainly in treated children, both at discharge (p < 0.003), at outpatient follow-up (p < 0.00001), and at one month of life (p < 0.00001). Differences in growth and health conditions were not found between the groups. CONCLUSION: We believe that osteopathic treatment associated with neuromotor facilitation techniques can optimize newborns' sucking skills, improving the acquisition and duration of breastfeeding.

Acute effect of scapular mobilization with associated myofascial release on butterfly performance: Randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the acute effect of scapular mobilization with associated myofascial release compared to scapular mobilization without myofascial release on butterfly stroke sports performance. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHOD: Pilot study that non-probabilistically convenience sampling that selected butterfly swimmers who were simply randomized into three groups to receive the standard protocol (scapular mobilization with release of the subscapularis muscle by the lateral edge of the scapula and rib cage detachment) in intervention group (IG), sham group (SG) (scapular mobilization without subscapularis muscle release and without rib cage detachment) or no intervention in control group (CG). We evaluated the stroke frequency, length, and average speed of 30 swimmers using the 8.15 Kinovea® motion analysis system. RESULTS: The findings showed that, compared to the CG and IG, the SG showed a significant reduction in mean velocity (p = 0.002; p = 0.02, respectively), stroke frequency (p = 0.002; p = 0.003, respectively), and stroke length (p = 0.01; p = 0.05, respectively). DISCUSSION: The results showed that manual therapy through scapular mobilization without associated myofascial release with detachment of the scapula from the rib cage worsened the swimming efficiency indicators even after 30 min of application of the technique. The limitations of the studies are related to the sample size, the risk of non-probabilistic contraction bias and the lack of blinding of the evaluators. Thus, the results of this study should be evaluated with caution.

Combined effect of myofascial release and passive stretching on plantar pressure in individual with hamstring tightness- an experimental study.

INTRODUCTION: The lower kinetic chain is known to be affected by hamstring tightness which causes biomechanical alterations. As per the literature, short hamstring might cause prolonged forefoot loading, which can cause higher repeated stress on the plantar fascia. There is evidence supporting the use of various stretching and myofascial release techniques for hamstring tightness, further research is needed to investigate their impact on plantar pressure. Hence the study aims to determine combined effect of myofascial release and passive stretching on plantar pressure in individual with hamstring tightness. METHODS: This was an experimental pre-post study design with 67 randomised screenings from asymptomatic health care science students aged 18 to 25. From this scientific survey, a sample size of 47 students having HMS tightness based on the popliteal angle were recruited using a universal goniometer. An intervention was proposed that included MFR and passive stretching in 3 sessions on alternate days. Plantar pressure of these individuals was noted by using the "Harris and Beath foot printing mat" before and after the intervention. RESULT: Significant pressure changes were observed after intervention: great toe of right side (p = 0.001), toes 2 to 5 of right side (p = 0.010) and left side (p = 0.008), first metatarsal of left side (p = 0.010), lateral forefoot of right side (p = 0.019) and left (p = 0.018), medial heel (p = 0.044), and lateral heel of right side (p = 0.025). These values substantiate the enhancement in plantar pressure. CONCLUSION: The combined effect of Myofascial release and passive stretching in an individual with hamstring tightness resulted in a significant increase in popliteal angle and plantar pressure.

Comparing the effects of positional versus myofascial release of gluteus medius to manage patellofemoral pain syndrome: single blinded randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of positional release technique in comparison to myofascial release technique on gluteus medius trigger point along with exercises to manage patellofemoral pain syndrome. METHODS: The single-blind, two-arm, randomised clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Physiotherapy, Sindh Institute of Physical Medicine, Karachi, from December 7, 2020, to March 24, 2021, and comprised patellofemoral pain syndrome of either gender with gluteus medius trigger point. They were randomly allocated to positional release technique group A and myofascial release technique group B. The intervention comprised 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks for a total of 18 sessions, with each session lasting 45 minutes. Function through anterior knee pain scale, pain through visual analogue scale, strength via hand-held dynamometer, and quality of life via World Health Organisation quality of life brief questionnaire were assessed alongside pressure pain threshold via algometer which was taken as the gluteus medius trigger point. All measurements were taken at baseline and 6 week post-intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS 21. RESULTS: Of the 64 participants, 38(59.4%) were females and 26(40.6%) were males. There were 32(50%) subjects in group A with mean age 29.50±5.84 years and 32(50%) in group B with mean age 29.50±5.43 years (p>0.05). Both the groups showed a significant reduction in pain, improvement in function, pressure pain threshold, strength, and quality of life (p;lt;0.05). Intergroup comparisons revealed no significant differences (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Treating myofascial trigger points of gluteus medius muscle, using either positional release technique or myofascial release technique together with exercise therapy was found to be equally beneficial. Clinical Trial gov ID: NCT04667091.

Determining the Association Between Insurance Type and Myofascial Release in Large Ventral Hernias.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) utilizes advanced myofascial releases to perform complex ventral hernia repair (VHR). The relationship between the performance of AWR and disparities in insurance type is unknown. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was queried for adults who had undergone an elective VHR between 2013 and 2020 with a hernia size ≥10 cm. Patients with missing insurance data were excluded. Comparison groups were divided by insurance type: favorable (private, Medicare, Veteran's Administration, Tricare) or unfavorable (Medicaid and self-pay). Propensity score matching compared the cumulative incidence of AWR between the favorable and unfavorable insurance comparison groups. RESULTS: In total, 26,447 subjects met inclusion criteria. The majority (89%, n = 23,617) had favorable insurance, while (11%, n = 2830) had unfavorable insurance. After propensity score matching, 2821 patients with unfavorable insurance were matched to 7875 patients with favorable insurance. The rate of AWR with external oblique release or transversus abdominis release was significantly higher (23%, n = 655) among the unfavorable insurance group compared to those with favorable insurance (21%, n = 1651; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that patients with unfavorable insurance may undergo AWR with external oblique or transversus abdominis release at a greater rate than similar patients with favorable insurance. Understanding the mechanisms contributing to this difference and evaluating the financial implications of these trends represent important directions for future research in elective VHR.

Myofascial release strategies and technique recommendations for athletic performance: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and foam roller self-myofascial release (FRSMR) strategies and verify their results in athletic performance. METHOD: Systematic review conducted in four databases from 2017. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of two forms of soft tissue mobilization on athletes' performance. The risk of bias was analyzed using the Cochrane Handbook scale. RESULTS: Ten studies were included for qualitative analysis. IASTM increased range of motion, knee joint kinetic force, peak torque, and angular velocity in dorsiflexion and plantar flexion. The technique increases isometric strength and isokinetic power in vertical jumping. FRSMR was relevant in counter movement jumping between the pre- and post-intervention conditions, mainly by increasing strength in the initial jumping phase. CONCLUSIONS: IASTM should be used in sports preparation to improve muscle response and explosive force production. FRSMR increases flexibility as it tends to restore tissue elasticity, but it does not improve aerobic activity. The suggested time for strategy intervention is at least 90 s per muscle group.

Comparing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy and myofascial release therapy in chronic pelvic pain syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome is a highly prevalent syndrome. Previous studies showed that extracorporeal shockwave therapy and myofascial release therapy could improve the quality of life in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Theoretically, combined therapy with extracorporeal shockwave therapy and myofascial release therapy will likely have significant advantages in treating CP/CPPS. We, therefore, present a protocol for conducting a well-designed randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of each therapy. METHODS: The proposed study will be a three-group randomized control trial (RCT) design that includes 150 participants from Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, with equal allocation of participants to the three intervention groups. The study duration will be 8 weeks, which includes a 4-week treatment period and a 4-week follow-up period. The primary outcome will be the changes in surface electromyography (sEMG) assessment and National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI). The secondary outcomes will include the changes in three-dimensional quantification, shear wave elastography (SWE), and sympathetic skin response (SSR) testing. Assessments will be conducted before the intervention (T0), before the 5th intervention (T1), immediately after the 8th intervention (T2), and the 4th week after the end of the 8th intervention (T3). DISCUSSION: This trial will compare the differences in efficacy between single extracorporeal shockwave therapy, single myofascial release therapy, and combined therapy to select the most appropriate treatment option for patients with CP/CPPS. The possible pathogenesis of CP/CPPS would also be analyzed by comparing the intercorrelation between each objective and subjective measurement (NIH-CPSI score, sEMG, SWE, SSR). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The name of the registry: Extracorporeal Shockwave and Myofascial Release Therapy in Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05659199. Date of registration: December 2022.

The effect of progressive muscle relaxation technique and myofascial release technique on premenstrual symptoms, blood circulation, and quality of life in women with premenstrual syndrome: A single-blind randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common condition in women of reproductive age. It is characterized by a range of behavioral, physical, and psychological symptoms. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of progressive relaxation and myofascial release technique (MRT) on premenstrual symptoms, blood flow rate, pain, sleep quality and quality of life, in women with PMS. METHOD: The study will conduct as a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Study registered at the ClinicalTrial.gov Protocol ID: NCT05836454. The volunteers will be randomized using allocation software to be divided into 3 groups: the progressive muscle relaxation group, the MRT group, and the control group. Assessments will be conducted by another physical therapist who is blinded to the groups. The assessments will include the Premenstrual Syndrome Severity Score, Blood Flow Measurements, Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Short Form-36 Health Survey. DISCUSSION: Since both methods provide relaxation, improve symptoms and quality of life, they have not been compared to each other in the literature. This prompt to us to plan this study.

Comparison of immediate effects of myofascial release and fascial distortion model on the range of motion, pain pressure threshold, and balance in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Many fascial therapies have been demonstrated to positively affect the range of motion, pain sensitivity, balance, daily functioning, and participation in social activities. Among these therapies, myofascial release has been extensively studied and widely used in clinical trials. The fascial distortion model was recently introduced, and it has received much attention due to its rapid onset of action and ease of application. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effects of myofascial release and the fascial distortion model on range of motion, pain sensitivity, and balance, with the goal of helping therapists select the most appropriate treatment. METHODS: Sixteen healthy adults were included in a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. The subjects were randomly assigned to either the myofascial release or fascial distortion model groups. The outcome measures were functional reach test, pain pressure threshold, straight leg-raising test angle, and finger floor distance. RESULTS: The myofascial release and fascial distortion model groups showed significantly increased straight leg-raising angle and finger floor distance, but no between-group differences were observed (p > .05). The fascial distortion model group demonstrated significantly better pain control (p < .05), which was also better than in the myofascial release group (p < .05). The myofascial release group showed significantly improved balance control (p < .05); however, there was no difference between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Either myofascial release or fascial distortion model can be chosen to improve the range of motion. However, if pain sensitivity is the goal, it is expected that the fascial distortion model will be more effective.

Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization versus myofascial release therapy in treatment of chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) versus myofascial release therapy (MRT) on college students with chronic mechanical neck pain (CMNP). METHODS: Thirty-three college students with a mean age of 21.33 ± 0.98 involved in distance learning due to the Corona Virus 2019 (COVID-19) restriction were randomized to receive either IASTM on the upper trapezius and levator scapulae muscles or MRT. Researchers measured their pain with a visual analog scale (VAS), function with neck disability index (NDI), and pain pressure threshold (PPT) with a pressure algometer. The subjects received eight therapy sessions over four weeks and outcome measures were assessed pre and post-intervention. The study was registered as a clinical trial on clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05213871). RESULT: Unpaired t-test showed no statistical significance between the two groups post-intervention regarding improvement in pain, function, and PPT (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study showed insignificant differences between groups. However, we did not use a control group, indicating that the improvement in outcomes may not have been caused by the intervention. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental two groups pre-posttest clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2b.

Efficacy of orofacial myofunctional therapy combined with myofascial release in patients with mild obstructive sleep apnoea: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterized by repetitive narrowing and collapse of pharyngeal airway during sleep, leading to apnoea or hypopnoea. In this context, myofunctional therapy and myofascial release might be effective, despite the literature on the combination of these approaches is still scarce. OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the efficacy of oro-facial myofunctional therapy combined with myofascial release in terms of functioning in patients with mild OSA. METHODS: Patients aged from 40 to 80 years with diagnosis of mild OSA were randomly allocated into intervention group (oro-facial myofunctional therapy plus myofascial release) and control group (only oro-facial myofunctional therapy). At the baseline (T0), after 4 weeks (T1), and after 8 weeks (T2), the following outcomes were assessed: apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI), average oxygen saturation (SpO2 ), sleep time spent with oxygen saturation < 90% (T90), snoring index, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). RESULTS: Out of the 60 patients enrolled, 28 (aged 61.46 ± 8.74 years) complete the treatment in the intervention group and 24 (aged 60.42 ± 6.61 years) in the control group. There were no significant differences in AHI between groups. A significant difference was reported for ΔT0-T1 SpO2 (p = .01), T90 (p = .030), ΔT0-T1 and ΔT0-T2 snoring index (p = .026 and <.001 respectively), and ΔT0-T1 and ΔT0-T2 Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (p = .003 and <.001 respectively). CONCLUSION: Taken together, a combination of oro-facial myofunctional therapy and myofascial release showed a potential treatment for sleep quality in patients with mild OSA. Future studies are necessary to better investigate the role of these interventions in OSA patients.

The Effect of Remote Myofascial Release on Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain With Hamstrings Tightness.

CONTEXT: Anatomy trains theory states that performing techniques in any part of the superficial myofascial backline can remotely treat other parts of this pathway. Due to the connections of different parts of the superficial backline, it is possible to influence the hamstring by performing the technique in the lumbar area. As chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) may lead to or be caused by hamstring tightness, remote myofascial release (MFR) techniques using the superficial backline can help improve hamstring tightness. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of remote MFR on hamstring tightness for those with chronic nonspecific LBP. DESIGN: Single-blind, parallel design. SETTING: The present study was performed at the clinical setting of Tarbiat Modares University in Iran. METHODS: This study included 40 participants (20 males and 20 females) who were 40.5 (5.3) years old with chronic nonspecific LBP and hamstring tightness. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly divided into the lumbar MFR (remote area) and hamstring MFR groups. Participants underwent 4 sessions of MFR for 2 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A passive knee-extension (PKE) test was used for muscle tightness evaluation 3 times. RESULTS: Repeated-measure analysis of variance test showed that after the lumbar and hamstring MFR, the PKE was significantly reduced in both legs: lumbar MFR (right knee: from 61.04° [2.17°] to 51.01° [4.11°], P ≤ .003 and left knee: from 63.02° [3.12°] to 52.09° [2.48°], P ≤ .004) and hamstring MFR (right knee: from 62.01° [4.32°] to 50.50° [7.18°], P ≤ .001 and left knee: from 63.11° [2.56°] to 51.32° [5.31°], P ≤ .002). Least Significant Difference (LSD) post hoc test results showed that the 2 groups were not significantly different after the MFR (P ≥ .05). Also, the intraclass correlation coefficient index showed that the PKE test has excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, .910 for the right limb and .915 for the left limb). The minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval indicated that a change greater than or equal to 6° is required to exceed the threshold of the error PKE test, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that the remote MFR technique to the lumbar region demonstrated the same significant results in decreasing hamstring tightness as was noted in hamstring MFR to both limbs in patients with chronic nonspecific LBP.

Effects of traditional stretching versus self-myofascial release warm-up on physical performance in well-trained female athletes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of self-myofascial release (SMR) versus traditional stretching used as a part of warm-up on physical performance in well-trained female athletes. METHODS: Twenty-three participants (age, 21.8±1.73 years; experience in sport, 114.8±30.5 months) were recruited. Isokinetic peak torque and muscle endurance ratio were measured during knee extension and flexion at 60°/s and 180°/s. Jump height, reactive strength index, and leg stiffness were measured using a jump mat during a counter-movement jump. Hamstring flexibility was measured using a sit-and-reach test. Three interventions were performed by all athletes randomly within 72 hours intervals. RESULTS: The jump height and hamstring flexibility test scores improved significantly more after dynamic stretching (DS) as compared to SMR and static stretching (SS). The DS and SMR exercises were more effective than the SS exercises in terms of right and left knee muscle isokinetic strength both at 60°/s, and 180°/s. With regard to keeping muscular endurance ratio (%), SS exercises were found more effective than DS and SMR exercises for only the right knee at 180°/s, but not left knee muscle. CONCLUSION: Dynamic stretching and SMR showed better flexibility, strength, and jump performance than SS. Trainers and players may replace SS with DS and SMR to acutely improve muscle power, strength, and flexibility.

Effects of diaphragmatic and iliopsoas myofascial release in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial release (MFR) technique is frequently used in musculoskeletal problems. There are many studies of the MFR technique on the diaphragm or iliopsoas muscle. However, no studies in the literature performed both diaphragmatic and iliopsoas MFR techniques in patients with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of diaphragmatic and iliopsoas MFR techniques on pain, lumbar spine range of motion (ROM), chest wall mobility, and flexibility in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two participants with chronic low back pain, aged between 20 and 50 years. INTERVENTION: The sample was randomly allocated into one of two groups; the myofascial group (n = 21) and control group (n = 21) received the MFR technique or the placebo MFR technique as a complementary therapy to traditional physiotherapy treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were pain, chest wall mobility, lumbar spine range of motion (ROM), and flexibility. Secondary outcomes were depression, kinesiophobia, and functional disability. RESULTS: The MFR techniques significantly reduced the pain, with a between-group difference of -2.05 (95% CI, -2.93 to -1.15) for rest, -2.62 (95% CI, -3.34 to -1.89) for trunk flexion, and -2.00 (95% CI, -2.84 to -1.16) for trunk extension in favor of the EG. MFR techniques significantly increased the lumbar spine ROM after interventions, with a between-group difference of 16.67° (95% CI, 8.87 to 24.47) for flexion, 7.63° (95% CI, 5.44 to 9.80) for extension and, 9.53° (95% CI, 6.57 to 12.48) for right lateral flexion. There was also a significant difference between the groups in flexibility in favor of the MG of 1.95 cm (95% CI, 1.41 to 2.49) for MST, -13.52 cm (95% CI, -20.18 to -6.86) for trunk flexion and, -4.37 cm (-6.50 to -2.28) for right lateral flexion The MFR techniques also significantly increased the chest wall mobility after interventions, with a between-group difference of 2.52 cm (95% CI, 1.82 to 3.23) for the xiphoid region and 3.48 cm (95% CI, 2.60 to 4.36) for the subcostal region. CONCLUSION: Diaphragmatic and iliopsoas MFR techniques may be effective in pain, lumbar spine ROM, flexibility, and chest wall mobility in patients with chronic low back pain. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT04415021.

Manual myofascial release and muscle energy enhances trunk flexibility and strength in recreationally resistance-trained women: Cross-over study.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of myofascial release and muscle energy on acute outcomes in trunk extensors active range-of-motion and strength in recreationally resistance-trained women. Seventeen apparently healthy women performed three experimental protocols using a cross-over, randomized (counterbalanced in Latin Square format), and within-subjects design: a) range-of-motion and strength test after a manual myofascial release protocol (MFR); b) flexibility and strength test after a muscle energy protocol (ME); and c) range-of-motion and strength test without myofascial release or muscle energy (control condition). Active trunk range-of-motion was measured via a sit-and-reach test and trunk extension strength via isometric dorsal dynamometer. A significant increase in range-of-motion was found for MFR (p = 0.002; d = 0.71) and ME (p < 0.001; d = 0.47) when comparing post-intervention with baseline values. Similarly, a significant increase for strength was found for MFR (p = 0.018; d = 0.10) when comparing post-intervention with baseline values. In conclusion, both techniques (MFR and ME) improved trunk range-of-motion with the sit and reach test immediately post-intervention; however, MFR showed greater magnitude increases in range-of-motion (MFR: (medium magnitude) vs ME: small magnitude). Due to the potential health implications, both (MFR and ME) responses should be among the many considerations for rehabilitation and performance exercise prescription when prescribing an exercise regimen.

Analysis of Postural Stability Following the Application of Myofascial Release Techniques for Low Back Pain-A Randomized-Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequently observed disorders of the musculoskeletal system in the modern population. It is suggested that myofascial disorders in the highly innervated thoracolumbar fascia (TLF), reported in patients with LBP, may be an underlying cause of the ailment. Research also confirms that patients with LBP demonstrate poorer postural stability compared with individuals without the condition. Myofascial release techniques (MFR) are additional therapeutic options that complement existing therapies and help provide a more holistic treatment for chronic LBP (CLBP). OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of changes in postural stability following one MFR intervention applied to CLBP subjects immediately after manual therapy and after a month. It was hypothesized that postural stability is going to aggravate immediately after the MFR intervention and improve one month after treatment compared with the baseline results before the treatment. METHODS: 113 patients with CLBP participated in a randomized-controlled trial. The experimental group (n = 59) received one MFR intervention, whereas the control group (n = 54) did not receive any therapeutic intervention. Posturography was performed to determine experimental group's immediate response to the therapy and to evaluate the experimental and control groups' responses to the therapy one month after the intervention. RESULTS: Only 2 out of 12 comparisons of stabilometric parameters demonstrated reliable effects that are in line with our research hypotheses. Even though both comparisons were observed for therapy outcomes within the experimental group, no reliable differences between the groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: A single MFR treatment in the TLF did not affect postural stability in CLBP patients in the experimental group. Further studies are needed to extend the findings by performing a series of holistic MFR treatments applied to a larger area of the body surface that would induce more general tissue changes and thus having a greater impact on postural stability.

Effects of Myofascial Release Using Finding-Oriented Manual Therapy Combined with Foam Roller on Physical Performance in University Athletes. A Randomized Controlled Study.

Sport is a science of constant reinvention that is always searching for strategies to improve performance. Objective: This study seeks to compare the effects of myofascial release with Findings-Oriented Orthopedic Manual Therapy (OMT) combined with Foam Roller (FR), versus FR by itself, on the physical performance of university athletes. A randomized controlled study was conducted with a total of twenty-nine university athletes, measuring Range of Motion (ROM), jump height and flight time, strength and dynamic flexibility using Goniometer pro, CMJ protocol in OptoGait, 1 Repetition Maximum (1RM) and Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV) and the Sit and Reach (V) test, correspondingly. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov prior to the initial measurement of the participants under the code NCT05347303. Through a univariate analysis, together with an analysis of independent groups with ANOVA and an analysis of covariance, it was evidenced that OMT combined with FR generated more and better effects in all the evaluated ROM, jump height and flight time, RM and VMP tests. Finally, it was found that OMT combined with FR is better when it is desired to improve ROM, muscle power, strength and flexibility, while FR alone only improves dynamic flexibility.

Self-Myofascial Release of the Foot Plantar Surface: The Effects of a Single Exercise Session on the Posterior Muscular Chain Flexibility after One Hour.

This study evaluated the effects of a single exercise session of Self-Myofascial Release (SMR) on the posterior muscular chain flexibility after one hour from the intervention. Thirty-six participants performed SMR using a rigid ball under the surface of both feet. Participants were tested with the Sit and Reach (S&R) test at four different times: before (T0), immediately after (T1), 30 (T2), and 60 (T3) minutes after the SMR intervention. The sample (n = 36) was categorized into three groups: (1) flexible, (2) average, and (3) stiff, based on the flexibility level at T0 (S&R values of >10 cm, >0 but <10 cm and <0 cm, respectively). For the whole sample, we detected significant improvements in the S&R test between the T1, T2, and T3 compared to T0. The stiff group showed a significant (p < 0.05) improvement between T1−T2 and T1−T3. Results were similar between the average group and the whole sample. The flexible group did not show any significant difference (p > 0.05) over time. In conclusion, this investigation demonstrated that an SMR session of both feet was able to increase posterior muscular chain flexibility up to one hour after intervention. Considering that a standard training session generally lasts one hour, our study can help professionals take advantage of SMR effects for the entire training period. Furthermore, our results also demonstrate that physical exercise practitioners should also assess individuals' flexibility before training, as the SMR procedure used in this work does not seem necessary in flexible individuals.

The effect of myofascial release in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a cross-over randomized controlled trial.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the effects of myofascial release (MFR) on upper extremity volume in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). DESIGN: A randomized, single-blinded, cross-over, controlled trial. SETTING: An outpatient rehabilitation clinical setting. POPULATION: Thirty patients with BCRL. METHODS: Within a crossover design with randomized treatment sequences, fifteen subjects received MFR for 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of washout period, and then received placebo MFR and the other fifteen subjects received interventions in the reverse order. Each session had a 60 min process including either MFR or placebo MFR for 30 min, followed by complete decongestive therapy for 30 min twice a week. Upper limb volume as the primary outcome and subjective pain, shoulder range of motion (ROM), chest mobility, shoulder function, and quality of life as secondary outcomes were assessed before and at the end of each intervention period. RESULTS: There were significant differences in upper limb volume after both MFR and placebo MFR (P<0.05) while no significant difference between MFR and placebo MFR treatments was found (P>0.05). MFR-based treatment also achieved a greater improvement than placebo MFR-based treatment in subjective pain and shoulder ROM (P<0.05), except for internal rotation, and shoulder function. CONCLUSIONS: MFR-based treatment showed clinical improvement in shoulder function, induced by decreased edema volume and pain, and improved ROM and chest mobility. However, a further study with parallel randomized controlled trials to confirm what was achieved in the present study. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: MFR-based treatment is considered an important part of BCRL rehabilitation. Moreover, MFR-based treatment may be safe for patients with BCRL.