Min-Hyeok Kang1, Jae-Seop Oh2, Oh-Yun Kwon3, Jong-Hyuk Weon4, Duk-Hyun An5, Won-Gyu Yoo6. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Graduate School, INJE University, Gimhae, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea. Electronic address: kmhyuk01@naver.com. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Biomedical Science and Engineering, INJE University, Gimhae, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea. Electronic address: ysrehab@inje.ac.kr. 3. Laboratory of Kinetic Ergocise based on Movement Analysis, Department of Physical Therapy, YONSEI University, Wonju, Gangwon-do, South Korea. Electronic address: kwonoy@yonsei.ac.kr. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, JOONGBU University, Chubu-myeon, Geumsan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea. Electronic address: jhweon@joongbu.ac.kr. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Biomedical Science and Engineering, INJE University, Gimhae, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea. Electronic address: dhahn@inje.ac.kr. 6. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Biomedical Science and Engineering, INJE University, Gimhae, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea. Electronic address: won7y@inje.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although gastrocnemius stretching and talocrural joint mobilization have been suggested as effective interventions to address limited ankle dorsiflexion passive range of motion (DF PROM), the effects of a combination of the two interventions have not been identified. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of gastrocnemius stretching combined with joint mobilization and gastrocnemius stretching alone. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In total, 24 individuals with limited ankle DF PROM were randomized to undergo gastrocnemius stretching combined with joint mobilization (12 feet in 12 individuals) or gastrocnemius stretching alone (12 feet in 12 individuals) for 5 min. Ankle kinematics during gait (time to heel-off and ankle DF before heel-off), ankle DF PROM, posterior talar glide, and displacement of the myotendinous junction (MTJ) of the gastrocnemius were assessed before and after the interventions. The groups were compared using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: Greater increases in the time to heel-off and ankle DF before heel-off during gait and posterior talar glide were observed in the stretching combined with joint mobilization group versus the stretching alone group. Ankle DF PROM and displacement of the MTJ of the gastrocnemius were increased significantly after the interventions in both groups, with no significant difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that gastrocnemius stretching with joint mobilization needs to be considered to improve ankle kinematics during gait.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although gastrocnemius stretching and talocrural joint mobilization have been suggested as effective interventions to address limited ankle dorsiflexion passive range of motion (DF PROM), the effects of a combination of the two interventions have not been identified. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of gastrocnemius stretching combined with joint mobilization and gastrocnemius stretching alone. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In total, 24 individuals with limited ankle DF PROM were randomized to undergo gastrocnemius stretching combined with joint mobilization (12 feet in 12 individuals) or gastrocnemius stretching alone (12 feet in 12 individuals) for 5 min. Ankle kinematics during gait (time to heel-off and ankle DF before heel-off), ankle DF PROM, posterior talar glide, and displacement of the myotendinous junction (MTJ) of the gastrocnemius were assessed before and after the interventions. The groups were compared using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: Greater increases in the time to heel-off and ankle DF before heel-off during gait and posterior talar glide were observed in the stretching combined with joint mobilization group versus the stretching alone group. Ankle DF PROM and displacement of the MTJ of the gastrocnemius were increased significantly after the interventions in both groups, with no significant difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that gastrocnemius stretching with joint mobilization needs to be considered to improve ankle kinematics during gait.