Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization Technique versus Static Stretching in Patients with Pronated Dominant Foot: A Comparison in Effectiveness on Flexibility, Foot Posture, Foot Function Index, and Dynamic Balance

11Citations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Pronated foot is a deformity with various degrees of physical impact. Patients with a pronated foot experience issues such as foot pain, ankle pain, heel pain, shin splints, impaired balance, plantar fasciitis, etc. Objective: The study intended to compare the effectiveness of IASTM (instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization) and static stretching on ankle flexibility, foot posture, foot function, and balance in patients with a flexible pronated foot. Methods: Seventy-two participants between the ages of 18–25 years with a flexible pronated foot were included and allocated into three groups: Control, stretching, and IASTM group using single-blinded randomization. Range of motion (ROM) measuring ankle flexibility, foot posture index (FPI), foot function index (FFI), and dynamic balance was measured at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention. Soft tissue mobilization was applied on to the IASTM group, while the stretching group was directed in static stretching of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex, tibialis anterior, and Achilles tendon in addition to the foot exercises. The control group received only foot exercises for 4 weeks. Results: The result shows the significant improvement of the right dominant foot in ROM plantar flexion, (F = 3.94, p = 0.03), dorsiflexion (F = 3.15, p = 0.05), inversion (F = 8.54, p = 0.001) and eversion (F = 5.93, p = 0.005), FFI (control vs. IASTM, mean difference (MD) = 5.9, p < 0.001), FPI (right foot, control vs. IASTM MD = 0.88, p = 0.004), and in dynamic balance of the right-leg stance (anterior, pre vs. post = 88.55 ± 2.28 vs. 94.65 ± 2.28; anteromedial, pre vs. post = 80.65 ± 2.3 vs. 85.55 ± 2.93; posterior, pre vs. post = 83 ± 3.52 vs. 87 ± 2.99 and lateral, pre vs. post = 73.2 ± 5.02 vs. 78.05 ± 4.29) in the IASTM group. The FFI was increased remarkably in the stretching group as compared to the control group. Conclusions: Myofascial release technique, i.e., IASTM with foot exercises, significantly improves flexibility, foot posture, foot function, and dynamic balance as compared to stretching, making it a choice of treatment for patients with a flexible pronated foot.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gupta, U., Sharma, A., Rizvi, M. R., Alqahtani, M. M., Ahmad, F., Kashoo, F. Z., … Ahmad, I. (2023). Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization Technique versus Static Stretching in Patients with Pronated Dominant Foot: A Comparison in Effectiveness on Flexibility, Foot Posture, Foot Function Index, and Dynamic Balance. Healthcare (Switzerland), 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060785

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free