Eficacia y percepción del dolor en técnicas de estiramientos hold-relax y electroestimulación / Efficiency and Perception of Pain in Hold-Relax Stretching Techniques and Electrostimulation

Se analizó el efecto de la técnica de estiramiento HOLD RELAX sin (HR) y con electroestimulación (HR+EE) sobre la mejora y retención del rango de movimiento (ROM) activo (AROM) y pasivo (PROM) de cadera en flexión, y la percepción del dolor durante su aplicación. 42 deportistas fueron asignados a tres grupos: control, HR y HR+EE. El ROM fue medido con el test Straight-Leg-Raise antes, al finalizar el entrenamiento y trascurridas 2 semanas de su finalización. La valoración del dolor se realizó con la escala EVA. El ANOVA mostró un aumento significativo del PROM (p < 0,001) en HR y HR+EE, no así del AROM. No se observaron pérdidas significativas del PROM en la retención de sendos grupos. En cuanto al dolor, no existieron diferencias significativas en los valores de EVA al aplicar ambas técnicas. Tanto HR como HR+EE fueron bien toleradas en cuanto a la percepción del dolor

The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of the Hold-Relax stretching technique without (HR) and with electrostimulation (HR+EE) on the improvement and retention of active movement range (AROM) and passive (PROM) of hip in flexion, and the perception of pain during its application. 42 athletes were assigned to three groups: control, HR+EE and HR. The range of motion of the hip flexion was measured by test straight-leg-rise before, once completed and after 2 weeks of completion the training. Pain assessment was performed in all sessions with the EVA scale. The ANOVA showed a very significant increase in PROM (p < 0.001) in HR and HR+EE, but not in AROM. No significant PROM losses were observed in the retention of both groups. Regarding pain, there were no significant differences in EVA values when applying both techniques. Both HR and HR+EE were well tolerated in terms of pain perception

Comparación de técnicas de entrenamiento de flexibilidad (FNP) con y sin electroestimulación / Comparison of flexibility training techniques (Pnf) with and without electrostimulation

El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el efecto de la técnica de estiramiento Contract-Relax Agonist Contract con (CRAC+EE) y sin (CRAC) electroestimulación sobre la mejora y retención del rango de movimiento activo (AROM) y pasivo (PROM) de cadera en flexión, en extremidad inferior dominante. 34 estudiantes universitarios fueron asignados a tres grupos: control, CRAC+EE y CRAC. AROM y PROM fueron evaluados antes, una vez finalizada y tras dos semanas de la finalización del entrenamiento. El entrenamiento tuvo una duración de cuatro semanas, a razón de tres sesiones semanales. El ANOVA mostró un aumento muy significativo de AROM (p<0,001 y p<0,005) y PROM (p<0,001 y p<0,01) en ambos grupos experimentales respectivamente. En la retención, se mantienen valores superiores con respecto a la medida pre-test. Como conclusión, la aplicación de CRAC+EE y CRAC mejoró AROM y PROM, siendo además efectivas en la retención de sendos rangos de movimiento

The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of the Contract-Relax Agonist Contract stretching technique with (CRAC+EE) and without (CRAC) electrostimulation on the improvement and retention of active movement range (AROM) and passive (PROM) of hip in flexion, in dominant lower extremity. 34 university students were assigned to three groups: control, CRAC+EE and CRAC. AROM and PROM were evaluated before, once completed and after 2 weeks of completion the training. The training lasted 4 weeks, with 3 sessions per week.The ANOVA showed a very significant increase in AROM (p<0.001 and p<0.005) and PROM (p<0.001 and p<0.01) in both experimental groups respectively. In the retention, higher values are maintained with respect to the pre-test measurement. In conclusion, the application of CRAC++EE and CRAC improved AROM and PROM, being also effective in the retention of two types of range of motion

Acute effect of active isolated stretching technique on range of motion and peak isometric force.

AIM: The aim of the study was to ascertain the acute effect of stretching technique Active Isolated Stretching (AIS) over the range of active and passive movement of the hip in flexion and peak isometric force (PIF) knee flexion. METHODS: The left and right leg of seventeen male Physical Education students (Mean age±SD=23±1 yrs, body mass=71.77±7.78 kg, height=175.5±7.5 cm) were treated as control and experimental groups and each leg was assessed separately for active (AROM) and passive (PROM) range of motion (ROM) and force. Immediately after the pretest, training was conducted with a single stretching session using AIS technique, consisting of 4 sets of 12 repetitions. Upon completion of the session, after 15s, the post-test was performed to evaluate ROM and isometric strength. RESULTS: The factorial ANOVA showed significant increases in AROM (P<0.05) and PROM (P<0.001) after the application of AIS in the experimental group. Only in AROM the value obtained in the experimental group was significantly greater than for the control group (p=0.018) AIS treatment did not affect stretching PIF values. CONCLUSION: We concluded that technique of AIS on the hamstring muscles was effective in improving acute ROM and caused no significant changes in PIF of knee flexion.

Effect of three types of flexibility training on active and passive hip range of motion.

AIM: The aim of this study was to measure the effect of 3 types of flexibility training, hold-relax (HR, N.=9), active isolated stretching (AIS, N.=9) and passive static stretching (PSS, N.=11) on passive and active range of motion of hip flexion after 9 weeks of flexibility training. METHODS: The subjects were physical education college students (14 men and 15 women) whose ages ranged between 20 and 24 years (age mean 21.79, SD: 2.45). A multigroup pre- post-test design with three experimental groups was used. The range of movement was measured by digitalization of pre-test and post-test images. RESULTS: Significant differences were found among the pre- and post-test for the three groups (P<0.05) on passive range of motion of the hip flexion, although there were no significant post-test differences between experimental groups. However, on the active range of motion of hip flexion there was only significant improvement among the pre-test and post-tests for PSS group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that PSS is the best option for the improvement of both active and passive range of motion.