LAUSR

CONTEXT Limited research reveals that the use of different soft tissue mobilization techniques increases tissue mobility in different regions of the body. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between administering instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and therapeutic cupping (TC) on hamstring tightness. DESIGN Subjects attended one session wherein treatment and leg order were randomized before attending the session. A statistical analysis was completed using a 2 (intervention) × 2 (time) repeated-measures analysis of variance at α level ≤ .05. PARTICIPANTS Thirty-three subjects between the age of 18-35 years old with bilateral hamstring tightness participated in this study. INTERVENTIONS The IASTM and TC were administered on different legs for 5 minutes and over the entire area of the hamstring muscles. One TC was moved over the entire treatment area in a similar fashion as the IASTM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The intervention measurements included soreness numeric rating scale, Sit-n-Reach (single leg for side being tested), goniometric measurement for straight-leg hip-flexion motion, and superficial skin temperature. The timeline for data collection included: (1) intervention measurements for the first randomized leg, (2) 5-minute treatment with the first intervention treatment, (3) intervention measurements repeated for postintervention outcomes, and (4) repeat the same steps for 1 to 3 with the contralateral leg and the other intervention. RESULTS There was a main effect over time for Sit-n-Reach, measurement (pre-IASTM-29.50 [8.54], post-IASTM-32.11 [8.31] and pre-TC-29.67 [8.21], post-TC-32.05 [8.25]) and goniometric measurement (pre-IASTM-83.45 [13.86], post-IASTM-92.73 [13.20] and pre-TC-83.76 [11.97], post-TC-93.67 [12.15]; P < .05). CONCLUSION Both IASTM and TC impacted hamstring mobility during a single treatment using only an instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization technique without any additional therapeutic intervention.