Manipulation and Myofascial Techniques On Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction (HVLA)

Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University

Status: Completed

Conditions: Performance Anxiety; Physiotherapists; Participation, Patient; Manipulation, Psychologic; Pain

Treatments: Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT06089772

61351342

Details and patient eligibility

About

Aimed to compare the effects of High-Velocity Low-Amplitude (HVLA) manipulation and myofascial release techniques on performance in healthy individuals with sacroiliac joint dysfunction.

Full description

Aim: aimed to compare the effects of High-Velocity Low-Amplitude (HVLA) manipulation and myofascial release techniques on performance in healthy individuals with sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Design: Randomized control trial. Setting: University physiotherapy clinic. Participiants: Participants aged 18-45 years with confirmed Dysfunction by six clinical Sacroiliac Joint diagnostic tests. Intervention: The groups determined as randomly into the four groups. Group I (n=14) received HVLA spinal manipulation, Group II (n=14) underwent foam roller stretching, Group III (n=14) received a combination of HVLA spinal manipulation and foam roller stretching, and Group IV (n=14) underwent sham manipulation as the control group. Measures were measured before the acute intervention and right after the intervention. Outcomes: Prior to the interventions, participants were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain assessment, the Baseline Sit and Reach test for flexibility assessment, the Optojump Next system (Via Stradivari, Bolzano) for vertical jump performance and multiple jump tests, and the MicroFet2 digital hand dynamometer (United States, Utah) for muscle strength measurement. Results: The study groups showed statistically significant improvements in performance parameters compared to the control group (p<0.05). Pre-treatment and post-treatment performance parameters and pain values were statistically significant in both groups (p<0.05). While performance improvements were observed in all four groups, the highest changes were generally observed in the HVLA + Myofascial release group. Conclusion: Considering the overall results, the combined use of HVLA and Myofascial release in the treatment protocol is recommended.

Enrollment: 56 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 45 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

1. Volunteer
2. Being between the ages of 18-45,
3. Not to have any psychological, neurological, orthopedic and rheumatic disorders,
4. Not having any other musculoskeletal pathology affecting the lower extremities,
5. Not having undergone spine and/or lower extremity surgery,
6. Those with mechanical sacroiliac joint pain,
7. Patients in whom at least 3 out of 6 provocation tests showing sacroiliac joint dysfunction and validity-reliability studies were positive: 1. Distraction, 2. Compression, 3. Gaenslen, 4. Posterior friction test, 5. Sacral thrust, 6. Faber (8) Individuals with sacroiliac pain at least 3 points on the VAS in the last 1 month 11

Exclusion criteria

1. Being under the age of 18 and over the age of 45,
2. Having any psychological, neurological, orthopedic and rheumatic disorders,
3. Pregnancy and suspicion of pregnancy,
4. Having active malignancies,
5. Having an active infection,
6. Injection and operation of the sacroiliac joint in the last 3 months,
7. Having drug or substance addiction,
8. Central vascular/neurological conditions

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

56 participants in 4 patient groups

Group I

Experimental group

Description:

Group I (n=14) received HVLA spinal manipulation

Treatment:

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Group II

Active Comparator group

Description:

Group II (n=14) underwent foam roller stretching,

Treatment:

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Group III

Active Comparator group

Description:

Group III (n=14) received a combination of HVLA spinal manipulation and foam roller stretching,

Treatment:

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Group IV

Sham Comparator group

Description:

Group IV (n=14) underwent sham manipulation as the control group

Treatment:

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques