Immediate effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) versus myofascial release technique (MFR) on hamstring flexibility and dynamic balance among young adults
Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Background: A sedentary lifestyle can lead to many problems like the tightness of muscles, reduced flexibility, and balance hampering the daily activities of an individual. Person with sedentary lifestyle has adaptive changes taking place that can shorten the hip muscles. Limited extensibility of the hamstrings results in changes in the flexibility, and dynamic balance used while moving. Hamstring tightness is one of the factors that affect dynamic balance because it loses the ability to deform while being stretched. Soft tissue restrictions have been linked to poor flexibility and dynamic balance. To increase flexibility and dynamic balance, soft tissue mobilization techniques such as MFR and IASTM have been used. The purpose of this study was to determine the immediate effect of IASTM versus MFR on hamstring flexibility and dynamic balance among young adults. Methods and Statistical Analysis: Using the random method of selection, a total of 80 participants was chosen (group A and group B) based on the study’s inclusion criteria and their written consent was taken. A pretest was conducted for flexibility and dynamic balance. MFR and IASTM were given for 3 minutes in group A and group B, respectively, and the post-test was conducted. Statistical analysis was done through SPSS statistics 21.0, and a paired t test was used with an alpha level set at 0.05. Result: The study included a total of 80 participants, 40 in group A and 40 in group B. The mean age and BMI were 21.42 (±1.749495) years and 22.055 (±2.105636) kg/m2. Within the group, results showed that the mean for pre and postflexibility and dynamic balance for group A was 21.2023 and 25.8927, pre-right 28.5218, pre-left 28.7091 and post-right 30.2199, post-left 30.4345, respectively. The mean for pre and postflexibility and dynamic balance for group B was 26.0293 and 29.2973, pre-right 28.916, pre-left 28.8195 and post-right 30.6483, post-left 30.4125. Between-group results indicate the group A, precomposite and postcomposite score right [t(29)=−3.731, P=0.001<0.05], precomposite and postcomposite score left [t(29)=−3.334, P=0.002<0.05] and pre and post sit and reach [t(29)=−7.895, P=0.000<0.05] and the group B, precomposite and postcomposite score right [t(29)=−3.585, P=0.01<0.05], pre and post composite score left [t(29)=−5.086, P=0.000<0.05] and pre and post sit and reach [t(29)=−6.328, P=0.000<0.05]. Conclusions: It has been concluded that both IASTM and MFR has a significant effect on dynamic balance and flexibility but IASTM is more effective to improve the flexibility.
Authors: Sonali Saxena, Ifra Aman, Sonali, Mohd. Asif, Ghazala Khan, Kalpana Zutshi
Institution: Jamia Hamdard
Language: English
Subfield: Cell Biology
Domain: Life Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4407393322