The Effects of IASTM and Foam Rolling on Hamstring Range of Motion
Loading...
Presenter(s)
Lisa N. Nadeau
Abstract
Clinical Scenario: To determine which form of self-myofascial release is more effective at improving hamstring range of motion. Hamstring range of motion (ROM) is important for posture and reducing joint pain or causing injury which is vital in athletics. There are different ways to increase ROM, this review compares how IASTM versus foam rolling can improve hamstring range of motion.
Focused Clinical Question: In college athletes, how does instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) compared to foam rolling affect hamstring range of motion (ROM)?
Search Strategy: Studies included in the critical appraisal were taken from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, and Academic Search Premier using the terms: foam rolling, IASTM, Graston, ROM, flexibility, hamstring, athlete, and self-myofascial release. Inclusion criteria included sport related, hamstring ROM, and high school to college aged. While exclusion criteria were hamstring ROM not measured and not in the age category. From this search, seven studies were found with criteria to fit this critical appraisal.
Evidence Quality Assessment: Articles used had a PEDro score ranging from 5/10 to 9/10 and Oxford Levels of Evidence scores between 2-3.
Results and Summary of Search: IASTM and foam rolling have both demonstrated the ability to enhance hamstring ROM. Of the seven studies analyzed, two studies found an improvement in range of motion through IASTM (p = 0.014). One study reported an increase using a foam rolling intervention (p = 0.06) Four of the studies found that both IASTM and foam rolling were found to increase hamstring ROM (p = 0.001 – 0.05). Strengths of the study’s included consistency of ROM measurement throughout the study. Weakness found were that not many studies compared IASTM and foam rolling in athletes.
Clinical Bottom Line: Consequently, it can be concluded that both treatments offer viable alternatives for enhancing ROM, thus there was no difference between the two treatments. The strength of recommendation (SORT) is B.
Implications: Healthcare providers can apply both IASTM and foam rolling to improve hamstring ROM. Implications found through this study include that not many studies looked at IASTM and foam rolling with comparing range of motion, specifically in athletes. Future research needs to be done to better determine if one increases ROM more than the other. Future methodology should include looking at specific athletes including level of activity, sport type, and determining how these forms of intervention improve ROM between men and women.
College
College of Nursing & Health Sciences
Department
Health, Exercise & Rehabilitative Sciences
Campus
Winona
First Advisor/Mentor
Nora Kraemer
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Format of Presentation or Performance
Pre-Recorded Video
Closed Captions - Nadeau - RCA Day 2024
The Effects of IASTM and Foam Rolling on Hamstring Range of Motion
Clinical Scenario: To determine which form of self-myofascial release is more effective at improving hamstring range of motion. Hamstring range of motion (ROM) is important for posture and reducing joint pain or causing injury which is vital in athletics. There are different ways to increase ROM, this review compares how IASTM versus foam rolling can improve hamstring range of motion.
Focused Clinical Question: In college athletes, how does instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) compared to foam rolling affect hamstring range of motion (ROM)?
Search Strategy: Studies included in the critical appraisal were taken from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCOHost, and Academic Search Premier using the terms: foam rolling, IASTM, Graston, ROM, flexibility, hamstring, athlete, and self-myofascial release. Inclusion criteria included sport related, hamstring ROM, and high school to college aged. While exclusion criteria were hamstring ROM not measured and not in the age category. From this search, seven studies were found with criteria to fit this critical appraisal.
Evidence Quality Assessment: Articles used had a PEDro score ranging from 5/10 to 9/10 and Oxford Levels of Evidence scores between 2-3.
Results and Summary of Search: IASTM and foam rolling have both demonstrated the ability to enhance hamstring ROM. Of the seven studies analyzed, two studies found an improvement in range of motion through IASTM (p = 0.014). One study reported an increase using a foam rolling intervention (p = 0.06) Four of the studies found that both IASTM and foam rolling were found to increase hamstring ROM (p = 0.001 – 0.05). Strengths of the study’s included consistency of ROM measurement throughout the study. Weakness found were that not many studies compared IASTM and foam rolling in athletes.
Clinical Bottom Line: Consequently, it can be concluded that both treatments offer viable alternatives for enhancing ROM, thus there was no difference between the two treatments. The strength of recommendation (SORT) is B.
Implications: Healthcare providers can apply both IASTM and foam rolling to improve hamstring ROM. Implications found through this study include that not many studies looked at IASTM and foam rolling with comparing range of motion, specifically in athletes. Future research needs to be done to better determine if one increases ROM more than the other. Future methodology should include looking at specific athletes including level of activity, sport type, and determining how these forms of intervention improve ROM between men and women.
