Acute effects of self-myofascial release and stretching in overhead athletes with GIRD

Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit and Risk of Upper Extremity Injury in Overhead Athletes: Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on the efficacy of addressing glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) and risk of upper-extremity injury in overhead athletes.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted for relevant studies published in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, Google Scholar, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

The review focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTSs) and quasi-experiments conducted in English language that assessed the effectiveness of GIRD and the risk of upper-extremity injury in athletes performing overhead movements. The review included 7 RCTs and 2 quasi-experiments out of 5403, which involved a total of 360 participants.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened the articles, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data for analysis. The review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews. All studies were assessed in duplicate for risk of bias using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale for RCTs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The efficacy of different types of techniques was evaluated, including joint mobilization, sleeper stretch, cross-body stretch, myofascial release, kinesio taping, and rigid taping. These techniques showed improvement in pain score and range of motion. Furthermore, self-myofascial release tends to improve internal rotation; sleeper stretch and cross-body stretch tend to improve internal rotation with 40 percent decline in pain. However, kinesio taping and rigid taping showed positive results for internal rotation. Acute results determined that the metabolic equivalent (MET) group had significantly more horizontal adduction range of motion posttreatment compared with the control group (P=.04). No significant differences existed between MET and joint mobilizations or between joint mobilizations and the control group for horizontal adduction (P>.16). No significant between-group differences existed acutely for internal rotation (P>.28). There were no significant between-group differences for either horizontal adduction or internal rotation at the 15-minute posttests (P>.70).

CONCLUSIONS

The study evaluated the efficacy of various techniques in improving pain score and range of motion in individuals with GIRD. Joint mobilization, sleeper stretch, cross-body stretch, myofascial release, kinesio taping, and rigid taping all showed improvements in pain score and range of motion. However, no significant between-group differences were found for horizontal adduction or internal rotation at the 15-minute posttests. These findings suggest that a combination of these techniques may be effective in treating individuals with GIRD.

Immediate effects of myofascial release to the pectoral fascia on posture, range of motion, and muscle excitation: a crossover randomized clinical trial

CONTEXT

Forward shoulder posture (FSP) is a risk factor for shoulder pathology. Manual therapists often use myofascial release (MFR) to elongate restricted pectoral fascia to reduce FSP and improve shoulder function; however, the effects of this treatment approach remain anecdotal.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the acute effects of 4-min of MFR, compared to a soft-touch control (CON), to the pectoral fascia on: 1) FSP, 2) shoulder horizontal abduction ROM (HA-ROM), and 3) muscle excitation of the trapezius (upper, middle, lower [UT, MT, LT]) and pectoralis major (PEC).

METHODS

Fifty-nine right-handed participants (27 ± 9 years, 30 female) with FSP, but otherwise asymptomatic shoulders participated in a randomized crossover clinical trial by attending two experimental sessions: one MFR and one CON treatment, each administered by a Registered Massage Therapist. FSP, HA-ROM, and muscle excitation during a reaching task, were measured before and after each treatment.

RESULTS

There was a significant interaction between treatment and time for FSP (p = .018, ηp = .093) with FSP decreasing from PRE MFR (128 ± 19 mm) to POST MFR (123 ± 19 mm; p < .001, ηp = .420) and PRE CON (126 ± 19 mm) to POST CON (124 ± 18 mm; p < .001, ηp = .191) interventions. There were no significant differences in HA-ROM or muscle excitation.

CONCLUSION

Four minutes of MFR or CON to the pectoral fascia acutely reduces FSP.

Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Athletes' Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

Therapists and strength and conditioning specialists use self-myofascial release (SMR) as an intervention tool through foam rollers or massage rollers for soft tissue massage, with the purpose of improving mobility in the muscular fascia. Moreover, the use of SMR by professional and amateur athletes during warm-ups, cool downs, and workouts can have significant effects on their physical performance attributes, such as range of motion (ROM) and strength. The purpose of this study was to analyse the literature pertaining to these types of interventions and their effects found in different physical performance attributes for athletes. A systematic search was carried out using the following databases: PUBMED, ISI Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane, including articles up to September 2023. A total of 25 articles with 517 athletes were studied in depth. SMR seems to have acute positive effects on flexibility and range of motion, without affecting muscle performance during maximal strength and power actions, but favouring recovery perception and decreasing delayed-onset muscle soreness. Some positive effects on agility and very short-range high-speed actions were identified, as well. In conclusion, although there is little evidence of its method of application due to the heterogeneity in that regard, according to our findings, SMR could be used as an intervention to improve athletes' perceptual recovery parameters, in addition to flexibility and range of motion, without negatively affecting muscle performance.

Treatment of glenohumeral internal rotation deficit in the general population with shoulder pain: An open single-arm clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Maladaptation can provoke important alterations in the arthrokinematics such as an internal rotation reduction in the dominant shoulder compared with the nondominant shoulder known as glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD). Though the number of studies investigating GIRD in athletic population, there are not studies reporting the efficacy of the GIRD treatment in the nonathlete population, a kind of study required to improve our understanding of patient care with this pathology. This study aimed to describe the efficacy of the GIRD treatment in nonathlete population with shoulder pain.

METHODS

An open single-arm trial with 35 patients was adopted for evaluating the efficacy of GIRD treatment in patients with shoulder pain. All patients with shoulder pain who attended the consultation, accepted, and agreed to participate in the study between October 2020 and March 2021 were included. A treatment sequence including joint manual therapy techniques and soft tissue release techniques was applied in the consultation. Then, patients were instructed to adapt the daily active biological stimulus at home. The IR before (IR0) and after (IR1) the treatment was considered the outcome measure. The GIRD was calculated as the difference between the IR of the non-painful shoulder and the IR of the painful shoulder before (GIRD0) and after treatment (GIRD1). A paired Student t test was used to compare the GIRD of each patient before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

Treatment of the patients significantly increased the IR of the painful shoulder in all the patients (P-value < .0001) So, the mean IR0 was 26.09 ± 14.46º (23.64-28.53), and after the treatment the mean IR1 was 67.98 ± 15.03º (65.48-70.52). The mean difference after the treatment (IR1-IR0) was 41.89 ± 14.74º (39.4-44.39). The treatment also significantly reduced GIRD (P-value < .0001). So, the mean GIRD0 was 42.95 ± 16.26º (40.2-45.7), and after the treatment the mean GIRD1 was -1.05 ± 17.18º (-3.96 to 1.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment administrated in this study significantly increased the internal rotation of the treated and painful shoulder and reduced the GIRD from the first consultation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Foam Rolling vs. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching in the Hamstring Flexibility of Amateur Athletes: Control Trials

BACKGROUND

the use of stretching techniques in the sports world is frequent and common thanks to their many effects. One of the main benefits of stretching is an increased range of motion (ROM). Recently, the use of a foam roller has spread in sports practice due to benefits that are similar to those of shoes observed in stretching. The objective of the following study was to compare the results of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) with foam rolling (FR).

METHODS

The design of the study was a single-blind, randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrial.gov NCT05134883), and the participants were 80 healthy young athletes. The range of motion was evaluated with a modified sit-and-reach test before, during (at 30 s), and at the end of the intervention (at 2 min). The subject's discomfort sensation was measured using the Borg scale. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d coefficient. Volunteers were randomized into the PNF group or FR group.

RESULTS

the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001) during the intervention in favor of PNF group. The differences at the end of intervention showed that the PNF group had a greater increase in flexibility, with this difference being statically significant (p < 0.001). The sensation of perceived exertion with PNF at the end of the intervention was similarly classified as moderate for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that the use of FR is spreading in the field of sports and rehabilitation, the results of the present study suggest that the gain in flexibility in the hamstrings is greater if PNF-type stretches are used instead of FR.

A comparison of a single bout of stretching or foam rolling on range of motion in healthy adults

PURPOSE

Stretching and foam rolling are common warm-up exercises and can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, possible differences in the magnitude of change on ROM between these two interventions on the immediate and prolonged effects (e.g., 10 min after the intervention) are not yet well understood. Thus, the purpose of this review was to compare the immediate and prolonged effects of a single bout of foam rolling with a single bout of stretching on ROM in healthy participants.

METHODS

In total, 20 studies with overall 38 effect sizes were found to be eligible for a meta-analysis. For the main analysis, subgroup analysis, we applied a random-effect meta-analysis, mixed-effect model, respectively. The subgroup analyses included age groups, sex, and activity levels of the participants, as well as the tested muscles, the duration of the application, and the study design.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences between a single stretching and foam rolling exercise immediately after the interventions (ES = 0.079; P = 0.39) nor a difference 10 min (ES =  - 0.051; P = 0.65), 15 min (ES =  - 0.011; P = 0.93), and 20 min (ES =  - 0.161; P = 0.275) post-intervention. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between the acute effects of stretching and foam rolling (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

If the goal is to increase the ROM acutely, both interventions can be considered as equally effective. Likely, similar mechanisms are responsible for the acute and prolonged ROM increases such as increased stretch tolerance or increased soft-tissue compliance.

A Comparison of the Effects of Foam Rolling and Stretching on Physical Performance. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Foam rolling and stretching with its various techniques are frequently used as a warm-up routine to increase the range of motion of a joint. While the magnitude of the changes in range of motion between foam rolling and stretching (static and dynamic techniques) is similar, it is not clear if this also holds true for performance parameters (e.g., strength, jump height). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of an acute bout of foam rolling (with and without vibration) with an acute bout of stretching (with all techniques included) on performance parameters in healthy participants. We assessed the results from 13 studies and 35 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses with the stretching technique, type of foam rolling, tested muscle, treatment duration, and type of task. We found no significant overall effect, and the analysis revealed only a trend of the performance parameters in favor of foam rolling when compared to stretching (when considering all techniques). Significantly favorable effects of foam rolling on performance were detected with subgroup analyses when compared to static stretching, when applied to some muscles (e.g., quadriceps) or some tasks (e.g., strength), when applied for longer than 60 s, or when the foam rolling included vibration. When foam rolling was compared to dynamic stretching or applied in the non-vibration mode, the same magnitude of effect was observed. While the present meta-analysis revealed no significantly different effect between foam rolling and stretching (including all techniques) prior to exercise, differences could be observed under specific conditions.

The Accumulated Effects of Foam Rolling Combined with Stretching on Range of Motion and Physical Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although it is well known that both stretching and foam rolling can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) and affect performance, the effects of a combined treatment (foam rolling and stretching) are not yet clear. Hence, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the combined effect to that of stretching or foam rolling alone on both ROM and performance. We assessed the effect of a combined treatment on ROM and compared it to the effect of stretching, foam rolling, and a control condition by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. We also applied the same model to compare the effect of the combined treatment on performance. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses with the stretching technique, type of foam rolling, tested muscles, type of task, and the order of the combined treatment. We found a significant overall effect on ROM change when comparing the combined treatment with the control condition (effect size (ES) = -0.332); however, no significant effect was found when comparing it to stretching (ES = 0.032) or foam rolling alone (ES = -0.225). The meta-analysis revealed no significant overall effect on performance when the combined treatment was compared to stretching alone (ES = -0.029). However, the subgroup analysis for performance revealed a superior effect for the combined treatment compared to stretching alone, but only if foam rolling was followed by stretching (ES = -0.17), and not vice versa. Athletes do not have to combine stretching with foam rolling since no additional effect was observed. However, to increase performance, the combination of foam rolling followed by stretching can lead to greater improvements.

Foam Rolling Elicits Neuronal Relaxation Patterns Distinct from Manual Massage: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The present double-blinded, randomized controlled study sought to compare the effects of a full-body manual massage (MM) and a foam rolling (FR) intervention on subjective and objective indexes of performance and well-being. A total of 65 healthy individuals were randomly allocated to an FR, MM, or a control group who received a cognitively oriented relaxation routine. Self-report ratings of perceived anxiety, muscle relaxation, and muscle pain were used to index changes in affect and physical sensations. The sit-and-reach and toe-touch tests, as well as a mental calculation task, were used to index motor and cognitive performances, respectively. We also conducted resting-state electroencephalography and continuous skin conductance recordings before and after the experimental intervention. Both FR and MM groups exhibited neural synchronization of alpha and beta oscillations during the posttest. Skin conductance increased from the pretest to the posttest in the relaxation group, but decreased in the FR group. All interventions improved range of motion, although only the MM group outperformed the relaxation group for the toe-touch performance. MM was associated with reduced muscle pain and increased muscle relaxation. Reduced perceived anxiety after the intervention was observed in the FR group only. Overall, MM and FR both improved objective and subjective indexes of performance and well-being. Differences between the two massage interventions are discussed in relation to the effects of pressure stimulation on autonomic regulations and the proactive vs. retroactive nature of FR, compared to MM.

Selective Effects of Manual Massage and Foam Rolling on Perceived Recovery and Performance: Current Knowledge and Future Directions Toward Robotic Massages

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.

Roller Massage: Difference in Knee Joint Range of Motion and Pain Perception Among Experienced and Nonexperienced Individuals After Following a Prescribed Program

CONTEXT

Roller massage (RM) is a popular myofascial intervention. To date, no research has investigated the effects of RM on experienced and nonexperienced individuals and if there are differences between a prescribed RM program and a self-preferred program.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to measure the effects of a prescribed RM program with a foam roller on knee passive range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) among experienced and nonexperienced individuals. A secondary objective was to determine if there are differences between a prescribed RM program and a self-preferred program in experienced individuals.

DESIGN

Pretest and posttest observational study.

SETTING

University kinesiology laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 60 healthy adults (age = 26 [5.3] y) were allocated into 3 groups of 20 subjects: experienced, nonexperienced, and control. The experienced and nonexperienced groups followed a prescribed 2-minute RM intervention. The control group did their own 2-minute self-preferred program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Knee passive ROM and PPT.

RESULTS

For the experienced and nonexperienced, the between-group analysis revealed a statistically significant difference for ROM and PPT (P < .001). Within-group analysis revealed a posttest knee passive ROM increase of 8° for experienced and 7° for the nonexperienced. For PPT, there was a posttest increase of 180 kPa for the experienced and 169 kPa for the nonexperienced. For the prescribed versus self-preferred program, the between-group analysis (experienced vs control) revealed a statistically significant difference (P < .001). The within-group analysis revealed a posttest knee passive ROM increase of 8° for the prescribed and 5° for the self-preferred program. For PPT, there was a posttest increase of 180 kPa for the prescribed program and 137 kPa for the self-preferred program.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that experienced and nonexperienced individuals have similar responses to a prescribed RM program. A prescribed RM program may produce better outcomes than a self-preferred program.

Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit: Prime Suspect or Innocent Bystander?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) is a term used in the literature to describe the physiological adaptation that occurs in the dominant arm of the overhead-throwing athlete. The meaning of this term and the clinical significance and the rationale for its treatment have all been described with some ambiguity within the literature. GIRD as a measurement is multivariate. There is an adaptive bony component in humeral retroversion (HR) and muscular contributions in the form of thixotropy which can confound the capsular component of GIRD. Emerging diagnostic tools such as ultrasound can help differentiate between the bony and soft tissue contributions as well as provide a dynamic assessment in the throwing shoulder. The purpose of this review is to describe and differentiate between anatomical GIRD (aGIRD) and pathological GIRD (pGIRD), discuss the clinical significance of pGIRD and values reported within the literature, and describe its measurement and clinical treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature has demonstrated that GIRD alone is not associated with injury risk of the upper extremity in the overhead athlete. Although past literature has demonstrated pGIRD as increasing injury risk, other variables such as external rotation (ER) deficit, horizontal adduction deficit, and shoulder flexion deficit have been associated with injury of the upper extremity while GIRD did not. Further, an appreciation for the difference between adaptive GIRD and pathologic GIRD has recently been emphasized to ensure optimal treatment addresses the pathologic portion of GIRD. The recent focus on early treatment approaches to pGIRD may play a role in its diminished risk association. This review offers the term humeral retroversion (HR) Corrected GIRD as a more clinically sensitive value that may provide the clinician a more precise rationale for the treatment of pGIRD. Currently, diagnostic ultrasound is a reliable and valid method for measuring HR in the overhead-throwing athlete. Future research that validates clinical methods for assessing HR could provide utility for clinical decision-making in the absence of diagnostic ultrasound.

Roller Massage: Comparing the Immediate Post‐Treatment Effects Between an Instructional Video and a Self‐Preferred Program Using Two Different Density‐Type Roller Balls

The aims of this study were to (1) compare the immediate post-treatment effects of an instructional video versus a self-preferred program on the hip range of motion and a pressure pain threshold using two different density roller balls, and (2) compare the effects of the two roller balls on those variables. Forty adults were randomly allocated into four groups: (1) MB1-video, (2) MB1-self-preferred, (3) MBX-video, and (4) MBX-self-preferred. Participants followed a video or a self-preferred program using either a moderate (MB1) or a hard (MBX) density ball. Main outcomes were passive hip internal rotation, external rotation, and a pressure pain threshold. For MB1, the video produced greater outcomes than the self-program for external rotation (10◦ versus 2◦), internal rotation (7◦ versus 2◦), and the pain threshold (210 kPa versus 44 kPa). For MBX, the video produced greater outcomes than the self-program for external rotation (8◦ versus 1◦), internal rotation (5◦ versus 1◦), and the pain threshold (184 kPa versus 30 kPa). When comparing roller balls, the MB1 produced greater outcomes than the MBX for external rotation (10◦ versus 8◦), internal rotation (7◦ versus 5◦), and the pain threshold (210 kPa versus 184 kPa) with the video. For the self-preferred program, the MB1 produced greater outcomes for external rotation (2◦ versus 1◦), internal rotation (2◦ versus 1◦), and the pain threshold (44 kPa versus 30 kPa). The instructional video and a moderate density ball produced greater immediate post-treatment outcomes than the self-program and a hard density ball. Professionals should consider using the video to teach technique and match clients to a specific density-type roller ball.

Roller Massage: A Descriptive Survey of Allied Health Professionals

BACKGROUND

In sports medicine, the interprofessional care of athletes has become a frequent practice. This type of care often involves different interventions used among professionals. One common intervention prescribed is roller massage (RM) or self-myofascial release. The trends in the use of RM among allied health professionals are nonexistent. The surveillance of such responses has not been documented.

PURPOSE

To survey and document responses in the knowledge, clinical application, and use of RM devices among allied health professionals in the United States.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive survey study.

METHODS

A 20-question survey was sent to allied health professionals including physical therapists, athletic trainers, and fitness professionals. The survey covered topics such as demographics, beliefs about RM, preferred devices, exercise prescription, and client education.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-two professionals (N = 1042) completed the survey. Most respondents believed that RM decreases pain (82%) and increases mobility (76%). A high percentage use a foam roller in their practice (81%), recommend a full-size foam roller (49%), and believe the medium density (48%) is the most effective. A high proportion of respondents prescribe RM for injury treatment (69%) and for preexercise and postexercise (61%). They also recommend rolling daily for 30 seconds to 2 minutes per muscle group (33%) at a self-paced cadence (46%). A high percentage of respondents use patient-reported outcomes (74%), joint range of motion (49%), and movement-based testing (48%) to measure effects of RM. Eighty-seven percent use live instruction to educate clients, and 88% believe there is a gap in the research.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey document responses in the use of RM among allied health professionals. The reported responses provide insight into how professionals are using RM as an intervention and the potential gaps between the research and professional practice. Future studies are needed to further validate these findings.

Roller massage: Comparison of three different surface type pattern foam rollers on passive knee range of motion and pain perception

INTRODUCTION

Roller massage with a foam roller has become a common intervention. To date, no studies have examined the therapeutic effects of different surface type rollers. The purpose of this study was to measure the therapeutic effects of three different surface type pattern foam rollers with the same density on passive knee joint range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the quadriceps.

METHODS

This pre-test, post-test randomized controlled trial was conducted in a university laboratory. Thirty-six participants (M = 22, F = 14; mean age = 25.20 ± 4.44 years) were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) smooth surface, (2) multilevel surface, and (3) GRID surface. The intervention was a 2-min rolling session. Outcomes included knee ROM and PPT.

RESULTS

Between group comparisons revealed a statistically significant post-intervention difference between the three rollers for knee ROM (p = 0.04) and PPT (p < 0.001). Within group comparison for ROM revealed a 3-degree (p = 0.015) increase for the smooth, a 5-degree (p < 0.001) increase for the multilevel, and a 6-degree (p < 0.001) increase for the GRID surface roller. For PPT, there was an increase of 14 kPa (p = 0.562) for the smooth, 179 kPa (p < 0.001) for the multilevel, and 182 kPa (p < 0.001) for the GRID.

CONCLUSION

The GRID and multilevel surface rollers produced greater immediate post-intervention effects than the smooth roller. The therapeutic effects of the GRID and multilevel rollers may be due to the surface architecture. These rollers may provide a greater deformation of the tissues which creates a local mechanical and global neurophysiological effect.

The Parameters of Foam Rolling, Self-Myofascial Release Treatment: A Review of the Literature

Self-myofascial release (SMR) is a well-known and popular therapy. Its growing popularity is based on high effectiveness and availability. However, there is a lack of agreement about which parameters should be used to optimize the effects of the therapy. The purpose of this review is to critically select and assess current literature and ascertain the values of the follow­ing parameters: (1) therapy duration, (2) volume of applied pressure, (3) speed and (4) frequency of roll, (5) type of roller, (6) the number of treatment applications during one session, (7) the duration of intervals between applications that yield the best results in terms of soft tissue.

The authors launched their research in May 2018. The search strategy included the electronic databases EBSCOhost and PubMed. The following inclusion criteria were assessed:

- English language, high quality manuscripts (evaluation in PEDro scale)

- at least one of the groups using the foam roller, tennis ball or the stick to fascial release

- basic parameters of therapy described.A total 55 articles met the inclusion criteria. Patients can usually withstand a maximum tolerable pressure for 30-120 seconds, repeated 1-3 times, separated by 30 seconds of rest. The intensity of a single rolling movement should be moderate, and the movement should last about 3 seconds. Keeping the roller on particularly sensitive areas is recommended to release tension and enhance blood perfusion.Currently, there is no consensus on an optimal FR programme. However, there is a tendency to use SMR tools with a physiol­ogy-based method to enhance therapeutic efficiency.

Glenohumeral Internal Rotation Deficit and Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

There is an association between throwing activity and glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD). An 18° to 20° deficit has been adopted as the standard definition of pathological GIRD, but specific findings as to how GIRD relates to an injury are inconsistent.

Purpose:

To systematically review the literature to clarify the definition of GIRD diagnosis for adolescent and adult overhead athletes and to examine the association between GIRD and an increased risk of injuries in these athletes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review of the literature was performed. Observational studies comparing glenohumeral internal rotation range of motion (ROM) in injured and uninjured overhead athletes were included for the meta-analysis. Studies of adolescent and adult athletes were analyzed separately. ROM was compared for the injured and uninjured groups, and a weighted mean GIRD was estimated. To account for potential heterogeneity across studies, both fixed- and random-effects models were used to calculate a standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results:

Nine studies of level 3 or 4 evidence were included. From these, 12 study groups (4 adolescent, 8 adult) comprising 819 overhead athletes (226 injured, 593 uninjured) were included in the meta-analysis. The estimated SMD in GIRD between the injured and uninjured groups was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.15-0.77; P < .01) for the overall sample. The between-group effect was larger for adults (SMD, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.18 to 1.02]; P < .01) than adolescents (SMD, 0.20 [95% CI, –0.24 to 0.63]; P = .13). The weighted mean GIRD for the injured and uninjured groups was 13.8° ± 5.6° and 9.6° ± 3.0°, respectively, which also differed by age group. Moderate study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 69.0%).

Conclusion:

Based on this systematic review, the current definition of pathological GIRD may be too conservative, and a distinct definition may be required for adolescent and adult athletes. While the results indicate a link between internal rotation deficits and upper extremity injuries in the overhead athlete, higher quality prospective research is needed to clarify the role that GIRD plays in future injuries to overhead athletes of various ages.