ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Manual massage (MM) interventions can improve psychophysiological states of relaxation and well-being. In this context, robotic massage (RM) represents a promising, but currently understudied, solution. HYPOTHESIS: Both MM and RM would improve flexibility of the hamstrings and lumbopelvic muscles and promote a psychophysiological state of relaxation through decreased sympathetic activity. STUDY DESIGN: Single-blind randomized crossover trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. METHODS: A total of 21 participants experienced 2 massage interventions targeting back soft tissues. During a first condition, the intervention was performed by a physical therapist, whereas during a second condition the intervention was performed by a robot. We collected objective and subjective indexes of performances and well-being before and after each massage intervention. We also collected physical therapists' self-reports of perceived fatigue, tension, and ability to maintain the massage routine. RESULTS: Skin conductance decreased from the pretest to the posttest in both conditions (partial R2 = 0.44, 95% CI [0.30, 1.00], P < 0.01), although the decrease was more pronounced after MM. Whereas both interventions were associated with improved subjective sensations, eg, pain, warmth, well-being (partial R2 = 0.08, 95% CI [0.06, 1.00], P < 0.01), MM yielded additional benefits compared with RM. The physical therapist reported greater fatigue and tension and reduced perceived massage efficiency along with repeated massage interventions. MM outperformed RM to elicit a psychophysiological state of relaxation. CONCLUSION: RM exhibited a pattern of changes comparable with that of MM, for both objective and subjective indexes of relaxation and well-being. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: RM could represent a prophylactic option to prevent the onset of counterproductive fatigability in physical therapists.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Self-myofascial release is an emerging technique in strength and conditioning. Yet, there is no consensus regarding optimal practice guidelines. Here, we investigated the acute effects of various foam rolling interventions targeting quadriceps muscles, with or without sliding pressures. METHODS: We conducted a blinded randomized control pilot trial in 42 healthy weightlifting athletes over 4 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the four intervention (120 s massage routine) groups: foam rolling, roller massager, foam rolling with axial sliding pressures, foam rolling with transverse sliding pressures. Knee range of motion, skin temperature and subjective scores of the perceived heat, range of motion, muscle pain and relaxation were the dependent variables. Measurements were carried on before, after and up to 15 min (follow-up) after the massage intervention. RESULTS: The range of motion increased immediately after the various foam rolling interventions (+ 10.72%, 95% CI 9.51 to 11.95, p < 0.001), but progressively returned back to the pre-intervention baseline along within the 15 min post-intervention. Foam rolling was the most effective intervention to increase skin temperature from thermographic measures (+ 14.06%, 95% CI 10.97 to 17.10, p < 0.001), while the increase in perceived heat was comparable in all experimental groups (107%, 95% CI 91.08 to 122.61, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective indexes of heat, range of motion, muscle pain and relaxation improved immediately after the intervention, but also gradually returned to the pre-intervention baseline. Overall, combining foam rolling with sliding pressures did not yield additional benefits from objective measures.
ABSTRACT
Manual massage and foam rolling are commonly used by athletes for warm-up and recovery, as well as by healthy individuals for well-being. Manual massage is an ancient practice requiring the intervention of an experienced physiotherapist, while foam rolling is a more recent self-administered technique. These two topics have been largely studied in isolation from each other. In the present review, we first provide a deep quantitative literature analysis to gather the beneficial effects of each technique through an integrative account, as well as their psychometric and neurophysiological evaluations. We then conceptually consider the motor control strategies induced by each type of massage. During manual massage, the person remains passive, lying on the massage table, and receives unanticipated manual pressure by the physiotherapist, hence resulting in a retroactive mode of action control with an ongoing central integration of proprioceptive feedback. In contrast, while performing foam rolling, the person directly exerts pressures through voluntary actions to manipulate the massaging tool, therefore through a predominant proactive mode of action control, where operations of forward and inverse modeling do not require sensory feedback. While these opposite modes of action do not seem to offer any compromise, we then discuss whether technological advances and collaborative robots might reconcile proactive and retroactive modes of action control during a massage, and offer new massage perspectives through a stochastic sensorimotor user experience. This transition faculty, from one mode of control to the other, might definitely represent an innovative conceptual approach in terms of human-machine interactions.
