Instrument-Assisted Soft-Tissue Mobilization for the Management of Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Pilot Study

Effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization combined with blood flow restriction training on function, pain and strength of patients with patellofemoral joint pain

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral pain syndrome is a prevalent sports injury that affects athletes both in their daily lives and during training. This condition causes pain in the area where the kneecap and thigh bone meet, and it can be quite debilitating. Whether an athlete is simply going about their day or pushing themselves to the limit during a workout, patellofemoral pain can be a significant hindrance.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of combining Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) treatment with blood flow restriction training on individuals with patellofemoral pain. Specifically, the study will assess improvements in pain levels, functional ability, strength, and joint mobility resulting from this treatment approach.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients diagnosed with patellofemoral pain were selected as observation subjects and randomly divided into two groups: the IASTM combined with blood flow restriction training treatment group (n = 13) and the IASTM treatment group alone (n = 13). The treatment period was 4 weeks. In this study, we conducted a comparison and analysis of the knee's visual analogue pain scale (VAS), Lysholm score, and a modified version of the Thomas test (MTT) at three different time points.In this subject paper, we compared and analyzed the VAS score of the knee, Lysholm score of the knee, and MTT at three different time points-before treatment, immediately after the first treatment, and after four weeks of treatment. Additionally, we recorded data using a maximum isometric muscle strength testing system for the lower extremity extensors four weeks before and after treatment.

RESULTS

In comparing the Lysholm scores within the groups, a significant difference was observed between the two groups following the initial treatment and after 4 weeks of treatment (p < 0.05). The scores increased, indicating a significant improvement in function. The VAS scores significantly differed after the first treatment and 4 weeks of treatment compared to before treatment (p < 0.05), indicating a significant improvement in pain. Additionally, after 4 weeks of treatment, the strength of the extensor muscle in the lower extremity significantly improved (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the strength test between the groups (p > 0.05). The MTT test revealed significant changes in the three joint angles before and after treatment (p > 0.05), suggesting an improvement in joint mobility. Overall, these results demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment in improving pain and muscle strength in the lower extremity.

CONCLUSION

The combination of IASTM treatment and blood flow restriction has been shown to significantly reduce pain and improve periprosthetic soft tissue flexibility. Additionally, IASTM treatment alone was found to be more effective in improving knee pain and muscle flexibility, ultimately leading to increased knee strength in a pain-free state. In terms of the overall treatment outcome, it was found that the combined treatment was significantly more effective than the adjuvant soft tissue release treatment alone.

Effects of therapeutic interventions on pain due to plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of different therapeutic interventions that have ever been evaluated in randomized controlled trials on pain due to plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

We searched different electronic databases until September 2022. Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the overall certainty evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 236 studies met the study criteria, including 15,401 patients. Botulinum toxin MD -2.14 (CI: -4.15, -0.14), micronized dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane injection MD -3.31 (CI: -5.54, -1.08), dry needling MD -2.34 (CI: -4.64, -0.04), low-dye taping MD -3.60 (CI: -4.16, -3.03), low-level laser therapy MD -2.09 (CI: -2.28, -1.90), myofascial releases MD -1.79 (CI: -2.63, -0.94), platelet-rich plasma MD -2.40 (CI: -4.16, -0.63), radiofrequency MD -2.47 (CI: -4.65, -0.29), and stretching MD -1.14 (CI: -2.02, -0.26) resulted in being effective treatments for pain when compared to the control in the short term. In the medium and long term, only extracorporeal shock wave therapy MD -0.97 (CI: -1.13, -0.81)/MD -2.49 (CI: -3.17, -1.82) was effective for improving pain when compared to the control.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available studies, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that different therapeutic interventions seem to be useful strategies for improving pain in patients with plantar fasciitis. In the medium and long term, only extracorporeal shock wave therapy was effective in improving pain when compared to the control.

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Versus Graston Instrument-Assisted Soft-Tissue Mobilization in Chronic Plantar Heel Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although there are studies showing that extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization methods are effective in chronic plantar heel pain (CPHP) treatment, there is a need for studies comparing these techniques. We compared the effectiveness of ESWT versus instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization using Graston Technique (GT) instruments in addition to stretching exercises (SEs) in CPHP.

METHODS

Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to three groups: ESWT+SEs (group 1), GT+SEs (group 2), and SEs only (control group) (ratio, 1:1:1). The SEs, twice daily for 8 weeks, were standard for all. Group 1 received low-intensity ESWT; in group 2, GT was the selected method. Visual analog scales (for initial step and activity pain), the Foot Function Index (FFI), the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia were used pretreatment, posttreatment, and at 8-week and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale and FFI scores improved posttreatment and during follow-up in all groups (P < .001). Although effect sizes were greater in groups 1 and 2 than in the control group in initial step pain posttreatment and at 8-week follow-up, group 2 had the highest effect size at 6 months. Mean SF-12 scores in groups 1 and 2 improved on the posttreatment assessment. Furthermore, group 2 showed significant improvements in FFI scores compared with the other groups at 6-month follow-up (F = 6.33; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESWT+SEs and GT+SEs seem to have similar effects on initial step pain posttreatment and at 8-week follow-up, GT+SEs was found most effective for improving functional status at 6 months in the management of CPHP.

Effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for the management of upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions. An updated systematic review with meta-analyses

PURPOSE

To critically appraise randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilisation (IASTM) and quantify the effects of IASTM compared with other treatment individuals with or without pathologies on function, pain, and range of motion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We search four electronic databases from January 1999 to January 2022 and included RCTs of healthy participants/athletes and people with upper, lower, or spinal conditions, who received IASTM versus other active treatment for clinical outcomes (function, pain, and range of motion).

RESULTS

Forty-six RCTs were considered eligible for data analysis. Effects of IASTM plus other treatment versus other treatment on function and pain intensity were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful (very low quality, SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.09) and (very low quality, SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.43) at up to one-year follow-up respectively. No clinically meaningful improvements were found on range of motion outcomes. Out of the 46 included RCTs, only 10 assessed and reported IASTM-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of very low-quality certainty does not support the efficacy of IASTM in individuals with or without various pathologies on function, pain, and range of motion in the management of upper body, lower body, or spinal conditions. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe included RCTs had a high risk of bias and were assessed as very-low quality evidence for all the included outcomes.IASTM does not lead to clinically meaningful improvements in function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions.The publication of IASTM trials in suspected predatory journals is increasing.The available evidence on IASTM does not support its use to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with upper body, lower body, and spinal conditions.Health care practitioners should consider other evidence-based management strategies (physical activity and exercise) to improve function, pain, or range of motion in individuals with musculoskeletal injuries and disorders.Given the rise of publications on IASTM in suspected predatory journals, health care practitioners should be judicious to examine the legitimacy of a journal when searching for evidence on IASTM treatment technique.