Advanced search


Search results        Search results      Copy URL to E-Mail

Immediate Impact of Muscle Energy on Hamstring in Comparison to Static Stretching
Virno, T. [1]
Hart, J. [3]
Tomilonus, N. [1]
van Rensburg, C. [1]
Boesler, D. [15]

Journal: Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Date: 2025/12, 125(12):Pages: A699–701. doi: Subito , type of study: randomized controlled trial

Full text    (https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2025-2000/html)

Keywords:

hamstring [18]
MET [604]
muscle energy technique [174]
randomized controlled trial [906]
range of motion [110]

Abstract:

Context: Hamstring hypertonicity may lead to injuries in the form of strains and tears, especially in cases of heavy usage in athletes [1]. Improving range of motion and flexibility of the hamstrings can reduce the incidence of hamstring injury during physical activity, as these injuries typically are caused by excessive strain during eccentric contraction [2,3]. Reducing hamstring hypertonicity may restore normal hip joint range of motion, alleviate muscle tension, and improve physical performance [4]. Certain sedentary populations, such as students, may be predisposed to hamstring hypertonicity due to postural effects, such as slouching or poor ergonomics [3]. Objective: To evaluate the immediate impact of a single session of muscle energy technique (MET) versus static stretching on range of motion (ROM) in healthy individuals. Methods: To assess hamstring hypertonicity among Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM) Bradenton faculty and students, 60 participants were recruited, and through a randomized single blinded control study design, 30 of the participants were placed in the control group of static stretching, and the remaining 30 participants were placed in the experimental group of MET [2,5,6]. Second year osteopathic medical students conducted both static stretching and MET. The initial assessment, treatment, and reassessment for each participant was conducted on the same day for each participant. The study took place over the course of a week in LECOM Bradenton’s osteopathic manipulative techniques lab, where treatment tables were available. Prior to MET or Static Stretch, subjects filled out a survey with questions related to subjective hamstring tightness, and then these same surveys were taken again after treatment. Initially, participants performed a v-sit and reach test following standard procedure or a static stretch, and their pretreatment reach distance was measured to establish baseline flexibility [5,7]. The participants then had their hamstring range of motion measured by a goniometer. The normal range of motion for the hamstring muscles at the hip, as assessed by passive straight leg raise (SLR), is typically 80–90 degrees of hip flexion in healthy adults [8]. 4 participants who had a SLR greater than 100 degrees were excluded from the study, 3 from the MET group, and 1 from the static stretch group. These participants proved to not have hypertonic hamstring muscles and would not benefit from treatment. After eligible participants had undergone treatment, their v-sit and reach test reach distance was remeasured following the same procedure. Their hamstring range of motion was also remeasured with the goniometer. Investigators that collected hamstring ROM measurements were blinded from the participants’ treatment group, preventing experimental bias in the data collection. The pre- and post-intervention data gathered from the v-sit and reach tests, and the goniometer measurements were compared via utilization of paired T-tests. T-tests compared the change in ROM of the same leg before and after their respective treatment. Results: After utilization of paired T-tests, participants treated with MET demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both right (p = 0.022) and left (p = 0.041) hamstring ROM compared to those who received static stretching. No significant difference was observed between MET and static stretching in V-sit and reach outcomes (p = 0.976). MET saw an average improvement in ROM of 11.52 degrees in the right leg and 11.89 degrees in the left leg, compared to an improvement in ROM of 8.52 degrees in the right leg and 8.83 degrees in the left leg seen in the static stretching group. Conclusion: A single session of MET produced greater immediate improvements in hamstring ROM than static stretching. We hypothesize that there was a greater response to treatment in the right leg due to the handedness of the participants, as the right leg may be more hypertonic in a predominantly right-handed society. The V-sit and reach technique may not isolate the hamstring muscle, rather involving the muscles and structures of the lower back and may not be as useful of a method of evaluating hamstring ROM. These findings support the clinical utility of MET as a time-efficient osteopathic approach to enhance musculoskeletal function and injury prevention. Further research should assess long-term outcomes and applications in athletic and rehabilitative populations.

Search results      Copy URL to E-Mail

 
 
 






  • Impressum • Legal notice • Datenschutz •


ostlib.de/data_tyxgswjnamzbrvuqpkec



Supported by

OSTLIB recommends