Comparative Effectiveness of Myofascial Release and Instrument Assisted Soft-tissue Mobilisation in Improving Flexibility of the Hamstring Muscle: An Experimental Study

Introduction: Hamstring tightness is prevalent among college students, with a reported incidence of 40.17% among adults. This tightness is commonly linked with movement dysfunction in the lumbar spine, pelvis, and lower limbs, which can result in low back pain, gait abnormalities, and other issues. Myofascial Release (MFR) and Instrument Assisted Soft-tissue Mobilisation (IASTM) are commonly used techniques known to release soft tissue. However, no study has compared the effects of MFR and IASTM on the flexibility of the hamstring muscles. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of MFR and IASTM on the flexibility of the hamstring muscles. Materials and Methods: An experimental study was conducted at the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, India from November 2019 to February 2020. The study included 60 subjects, of which two dropped out due to the onset of the pandemic. Inclusion criteria included asymptomatic healthy individuals aged 18-40 years with a knee extension angle of less than 160 degrees. Demographic parameters such as gender, height, weight, and Body Mass Index (BMI) were considered. The subjects were randomly divided into three groups (using a randomisation table from a third-party generator software): Group 1 (20 subjects) received IASTM, Group 2 (20 subjects) received MFR, and Group 3 (20 subjects) served as a control group. Treatment was administered on alternate days for five sessions. Pretreatment, post-treatment (immediately after), and post-post-treatment (after five sessions) readings of the Active Knee Extension (AKE) test were taken using a digital inclinometer. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS); between-group comparisons were made using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and within-group comparisons were made using repeated measures ANOVA. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean age of the study participants was 25.85±3.422 years. The results showed that there was no significant difference in post-treatment outcomes between groups, with a p-value greater than 0.05. However, the postpost-treatment group showed a significant difference with a p-value of 0.001. Within-group analysis of IASTM and MFR revealed a significant difference, with p-values of 0.020 and 0.001, respectively, at the 0.005 level, indicating a marked improvement in the Range of Motion (ROM). Conclusion: Both MFR and IASTM improve the flexibility of the hamstring muscles, as measured by the AKE test in healthy adults; however, there is no significant difference between the two techniques.