Effects of instrument soft tissue mobilization on ankle movement, gait-related muscle activation, and plantar pressure distribution in limited ankle dorsiflexion syndrome

Research Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the conventional stretching and ISTM stretching techniques on active ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion range of motion (ROM) and the electromyography (EMG) ankle muscle activation pattern in medial gastrocnemius (GCM), lateral GCM, and tibialis anterior (TA) as well as plantar pressure distribution in individuals with ankle dorsiflexion syndrome (ADS). Design A participant-blinded randomized experimental design, two groups pre-post test. Setting the general community. Participants 24 young participants with ADS (mean age, 24.77 ± 1.7 years; 11 women) were randomly assigned to two groups. Interventions Both groups underwent a standardized intervention protocol of 30-minute sessions. In the GCM+TA ISTM group, participants were received deep pressure massage using vibration and quick pressure techniques. In the GCM ISTM group, participants received similar treatment without vibration. Main Outcome Measures Clinical outcomes included ankle joint mobility, EMG muscle activation, foot pressure, and post-intervention questionnaire. Results Ankle joint mobility data: The two-way mixed ANOVA showed significant time x group interaction (P = 0.030) and a time main effect in the active DF angle data. Post hoc analysis confirmed that the relative changes in active DF angle data were identified pre- and post-analysis. (P = 0.0048) EMG Muscle activation: The two-way mixed ANOVA showed no significant time x group interaction effect and a time main effect, but a group main effect was observed in the mean TA activation data (P = 0.001). Foot pressure: The two-way mixed ANOVA showed no differences in forefoot pressure/area, hindfoot pressure/area, the sum of forefoot pressure, and the sum of hindfoot pressure. Conclusions This clinical research study demonstrated GCM+TA ISTM group intervention was more effective than GCM ISTM group in improving ankle mobility and lower muscle activation in individuals with ankle LOM. Our immediate findings suggest that GCM+TA ISTM group intervention would produce superior effects to GCM+TA ISTM group intervention on ankle mobility and muscle activation in ankle DF LOM individuals. Author(s) Disclosures None of conflicts.