Author Names

Markovik, G

Reviewer Name

Claire Hanlon, SPT

Reviewer Affiliation(s)

Duke University School of Medicine, Doctor of Physical Therapy Division

 

Paper Abstract

The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the acute effects of foam rolling (FR) and a new form of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM), Fascial Abrasion Technique ™ (FAT) on hip and knee range of motion in soccer players. Twenty male soccer players randomly allocated into FR and FAT group (n = 10 each). Passive knee flexion and straight leg raise tests were measured before, immediately after and 24 h after intervention (FR or FAT). The FR group applied a 2-min quadriceps and hamstrings rolling, while FAT group received a 2-min application of FAT to the quadriceps and hamstrings muscles. Both groups significantly improved knee and hip ROM (p < 0.05), with higher gains observed in FAT group (10-19% vs. 5-9%). At 24 h post-treatment, only FAT group preserved most of the gains in ROM (7-13%; p < 0.05). These results support the use of the newly developed IASMT, Fascial Abrasion Technique ™ and FR for increasing lower extremity ROM of athletes.

 

NIH Risk of Bias Tool

Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies

  1. Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT?
  • Yes
  1. Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)?
  • Yes
  1. Was the treatment allocation concealed (so that assignments could not be predicted)?
  • No
  1. Were study participants and providers blinded to treatment group assignment?
  • No
  1. Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignments?
  • Yes
  1. Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, co-morbid conditions)?
  • Yes
  1. Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at endpoint 20% or lower of the number allocated to treatment?
  • Yes
  1. Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at endpoint 15 percentage points or lower?
  • Yes
  1. Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group?
  • Yes
  1. Were other interventions avoided or similar in the groups (e.g., similar background treatments)?
  • Yes
  1. Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants?
  • Yes
  1. Did the authors report that the sample size was sufficiently large to be able to detect a difference in the main outcome between groups with at least 80% power?
  • No
  1. Were outcomes reported or subgroups analyzed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)?
  • Yes
  1. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were originally assigned, i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis?
  • Yes

 

Key Finding #1

Both the foam rolling (FR) and IASTM (FAT) groups demonstrated increases in knee and hip range of motion immediately following intervention.

Key Finding #2

The FAT IASTM group demonstrated effects twice as large as those in the FR group for acute ROM gains.

Key Finding #3

The FAT IASTM group had continued significant ROM gains 24 hours after treatment while the foam roll (FR) group returned to their pre-test baseline.

 

Please provide your summary of the paper

This study focused on the benefits of foam rolling and FAT (Fascial Abrasion Technique) instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization on knee and hip range of motion. Range of motion was assessed using 2 examiners and a digital inclinometer. The study was broken into two groups of similarly aged male soccer players; one that performed 2 minutes of foam rolling following a dynamic warm up, and one that underwent 2 minutes of IASTM following a dynamic warm up. The individuals were all given guidelines to restrict alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, pain relievers, and vigorous physical activity for 48 hours prior to the experiment. All individuals were confirmed to be clear of any history of thigh muscle injuries for 2 years prior to the study. The two groups, each consisting of 10 individuals, completed the same dynamic warm up followed by an initial measurement of hip and knee ROM. After the intervention, a second measurement was assessed which gave the results of acute change in ROM. The results demonstrated that both FR and FAT IASTM increased knee and hip ROM acutely, with FAT IASTM having greater effects. The 24-hour measurement indicated that FAT IASTM has a longer lasting effect with continued improvements in ROM versus the FR group returning to pretest baseline

Please provide your clinical interpretation of this paper.  Include how this study may impact clinical practice and how the results can be implemented.

One limitation of this study is the small sample size and the narrow scope of individuals involved. This study provides information for young, active males but it is unclear whether these results could translate to the general public. In addition, the FAT IASTM is unique to other instrument assisted soft tissue mobilizations and could have different outcomes. The results of this study can only be generalized for the use of FAT and more research would be necessary to analyze the benefits of other forms of IASTM compared to foam rolling. Additionally, the study did not look at how varying the time spent on each intervention could affect the outcome. Previous studies looking at IASTM and foam rolling used longer intervention times, which could impact the results of this study. This study was significant for the specific interventions tested, however, it would be beneficial to complete larger studies on varying IASTM techniques as well as a more general population of patients.