Display options
Cite
Michaeli A, Tee JC, Stewart A. DYNAMIC OSCILLATORY STRETCHING EFFICACY ON HAMSTRING EXTENSIBILITY AND STRETCH TOLERANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12(3):305-313
Michaeli, A., Tee, J. C., & Stewart, A. (2017). DYNAMIC OSCILLATORY STRETCHING EFFICACY ON HAMSTRING EXTENSIBILITY AND STRETCH TOLERANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL. International journal of sports physical therapy, 12(3), 305-313.
Michaeli, Arie, et al. "DYNAMIC OSCILLATORY STRETCHING EFFICACY ON HAMSTRING EXTENSIBILITY AND STRETCH TOLERANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL." International journal of sports physical therapy vol. 12,3 (2017): 305-313.
Michaeli A, Tee JC, Stewart A. DYNAMIC OSCILLATORY STRETCHING EFFICACY ON HAMSTRING EXTENSIBILITY AND STRETCH TOLERANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Jun;12(3):305-313. PMID: 28593083; PMCID: PMC5455180.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Jun;12(3):305-313.

DYNAMIC OSCILLATORY STRETCHING EFFICACY ON HAMSTRING EXTENSIBILITY AND STRETCH TOLERANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

International journal of sports physical therapy

Arie Michaeli, Jason Cameron Tee, Aimee Stewart

Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Johannesburg, South Africa.
  2. Leeds Beckett University, UK.
  3. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, [email protected].

PMID: 28593083 PMCID: PMC5455180

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While static stretch (SS), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and oscillatory physiological mobilization techniques are documented to have positive effects on a range of motion (ROM), there are no reports on the effect of dynamic oscillatory stretching (DOS), a technique that combines these three techniques, on hamstring extensibility.

PURPOSE: To determine whether DOS improves hamstring extensibility and stretch tolerance to a greater degree than SS in asymptomatic young participants.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized Controlled Trial.

METHODS: Sixty participants (47 females, 13 males, mean age 22 ± 1 years, height 166 ± 6 centimeters, body mass 67.6 ± 9.7 kg) completed a passive straight leg (SLR) to establish hamstring extensibility and stretch tolerance as perceived by participants, using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups (SS or DOS) or a placebo control (20 per group). Tests were repeated immediately following and one hour after each intervention. Data were assessed using a two-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and

RESULTS: Immediately post-intervention, there was a significant improvement in the hamstring extensibility as measured by the SLR in both the SS and DOS groups, with the DOS group exhibiting a significantly greater increase than the SS group (Control 73 ± 12°, SS 86 ± 8°, DOS 94 ± 11°, p < 0.001). One hour post-intervention, hamstring extensibility in the DOS group remained elevated, while the SS group no longer differed from the control group (Control 73 ± 12°, SS 80 ± 8°, DOS 89 ± 12°, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the stretch tolerance remained significantly elevated for the SS group, but there was no difference between the control and DOS groups, (Control 4.6 ± 1.3, SS 5.9 ± 0.8, DOS 4.3 ± 1.0 AU, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: DOS was more effective than SS at achieving an immediate increase in hamstring extensibility, and DOS demonstrated an increased stretch tolerance one-hour post-intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C.

Keywords: Dynamic oscillatory stretching; hamstring extensibility; stretch tolerance

References

  1. J Sport Rehabil. 2015 Dec 03;Technical Notes 17:2014-0220 - PubMed
  2. Man Ther. 2009 Oct;14(5):531-8 - PubMed
  3. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2008 Dec;63(6):763-70 - PubMed
  4. Eur J Pain. 1999 Mar;3(1):13-18 - PubMed
  5. Int J Psychophysiol. 2014 Dec;94(3):496-503 - PubMed
  6. Eur Spine J. 1993 Oct;2(3):140-4 - PubMed
  7. Phys Ther. 2010 Mar;90(3):438-49 - PubMed
  8. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012 Apr;22(2):164-9 - PubMed
  9. Physiotherapy. 2012 Jun;98(2):174-9 - PubMed
  10. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Feb;40(2):67-81 - PubMed
  11. Phys Ther Sport. 2016 Jan;17 :30-7 - PubMed
  12. J Orthop Res. 2004 Jan;22(1):116-21 - PubMed
  13. Spine J. 2004 May-Jun;4(3):335-56 - PubMed
  14. Joint Bone Spine. 2013 Oct;80(5):508-15 - PubMed
  15. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):136-44 - PubMed
  16. Aust J Physiother. 1988;34(3):141-9 - PubMed
  17. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Apr;20(2):169-81 - PubMed
  18. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Mar;23(2):660-7 - PubMed
  19. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Oct;27(10):3167-70 - PubMed
  20. Br J Sports Med. 2013 Mar;47(4):193-206 - PubMed
  21. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014 Jun 24;:null - PubMed
  22. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001 Aug;31(8):432-45 - PubMed
  23. J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp). 2014;2014:127471 - PubMed
  24. Eur J Pain. 2015 Jul;19(6):834-41 - PubMed
  25. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007 Jun;37(6):325-9 - PubMed
  26. Clin J Sport Med. 2010 Jan;20(1):8-14 - PubMed
  27. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015 Jul;19(3):389-90 - PubMed
  28. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21 Suppl):S54-68 - PubMed
  29. J Hum Kinet. 2012 Mar;31:105-13 - PubMed
  30. Man Ther. 1997 May;2(2):98-105 - PubMed
  31. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016 Aug;32(6):438-445 - PubMed
  32. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):583-8 - PubMed
  33. Man Ther. 1995 Nov;1(1):11-6 - PubMed

Publication Types