Manipulation and Myofascial Techniques On Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction

NCT06089772 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 61351342
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 56
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

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.

Conditions

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

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

• Visual Analog Scale

  Pain Level Measurement - When reading the VAS, the position of the respondent's cross is generally assigned a score between 0 and 100. If documented in paper form, the scores can then be simply transferred to a 100-value scale using a millimeter tape measure. The division into hundredths is considered sufficiently sensitive.

  Baseline - right after the intervention

• Baseline Sit and Reach Test

  Flexibility - A standard SR box was placed on the floor by placing tape at a right angle to the 38 cm mark. The participants sat on the floor with shoes on and fully extended one leg so that the sole of the foot was flat against the end of the box. They then extended their arms forward, placing one hand on top of the other. With palms down, they reached forward, sliding hands along the measuring scale as far as possible without bending the knee of the extended leg. Throughout testing, the physiotherapist (NU) heel remained at the 45 cm mark.

  Baseline - right after the intervention

• The Optojump Next system (Via Stradivari, Bolzano) for vertical jump performance

  Participants were positioned in a mini squat with arms held back, starting from the initial position. Participants were instructed to perform 3 consecutive vertical jumps, lifting their arms upward from the front. The average of the three measurements was calculated for jump performance and recorded in centimeters. Glatthorn et al., (2011) reported an interrater reliability ICC value between 0.997 and 0.998 for the Optojump Next device in estimating vertical jump height

  Baseline - right after the intervention

• The Optojump Next system (Via Stradivari, Bolzano) for multiple jump tests,

  Upon the practitioner's 'start' command, participants continuously jumped vertically for 15 seconds, maintaining their knees extended and hands free. At the end of the test, using the computer and camera connected to the measurement device, values (jump count, contact time, airborne time, height, power, step) were recorded

  Baseline - right after the intervention

• MicroFet2 digital hand dynamometer

  Muscle strength measurement was performed for the hamstring, gastrocnemius, and soleus muscles. For muscle strength measurement, the MicroFet2 digital handheld dynamometer (United States, Utah) was used 17. To ensure maximum isometric contraction for each muscle group, the application was repeated 3 times, with each contraction held for 5 seconds, and there were 15-second breaks between repetitions 18,19Participants were briefed about the procedures and were given 2 practice trials. After the practice trials, a 1-minute break was given before the actual measurements began.

  Baseline - right after the intervention

Study Arms (4)

Group I

EXPERIMENTAL

Group I (n=14) received HVLA spinal manipulation

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Group II

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

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

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Group III

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

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

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Group IV

SHAM COMPARATOR

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

Other: Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques

Interventions

Comparing to Manipulation and Myofascial Release Techniques OTHER

Randomized Controlled Trials

Group I; Group II; Group III; Group IV

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 45 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Volunteer
• Being between the ages of 18-45,
• Not to have any psychological, neurological, orthopedic and rheumatic disorders,
• Not having any other musculoskeletal pathology affecting the lower extremities,
• Not having undergone spine and/or lower extremity surgery,
• Those with mechanical sacroiliac joint pain,
• 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

You may not qualify if:

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

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Ayça ARACI

Alanya, Antalya, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Pain; Patient Participation

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Neurologic Manifestations; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Treatment Adherence and Compliance; Health Behavior; Behavior

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: PHD, Physiotherapist, Head of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department

Model Details: 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.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: October 3, 2023
• First Posted: October 18, 2023
• Study Start: June 1, 2023
• Primary Completion: July 31, 2023
• Study Completion: August 15, 2023
• Last Updated: October 18, 2023

Record last verified: 2023-10

Locations

TU (1)