diplomsko delo
Špela Berlot (Author), Miroljub Jakovljević (Reviewer), Urška Puh (Mentor), Polona Palma (Co-mentor)

Abstract

Uvod: Raztezanje je najpogostejša metoda, ki se uporablja za izboljšanje gibljivosti. Najbolj razširjena je uporaba statičnega raztezanja in raztezanja s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije. Raztezanje s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije vključuje aktivne mišične kontrakcije agonističnih in/ali antagonističnih mišic z namenom zmanjšanja živčne aktivacije agonističnih mišic in njihove sprostitve, kar omogoči večji razteg agonističnih mišic. V teoriji naj bi bilo raztezanje s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije učinkovitejše od statičnega raztezanja, saj aktivira senzorične receptorje v mišicah. Poleg primerjave s statičnim raztezanjem je potrebno učinke tega raztezanja primerjati tudi z drugimi tehnikami (mišično energetske tehnike, balistično raztezanje, ciklično raztezanje), saj še ni jasno, katera tehnika je najučinkovitejša za povečanje dolžine mišice. Namen: Primerjati akutne učinke raztezanja s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije z akutnimi učinki drugih tehnik raztezanja na obseg gibljivosti pri zdravih mladih preiskovancih. Metode dela: Pregled literature je potekal v podatkovnih zbirkah PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL in PEDro. Uporabili smo določene ključne besede v angleškem jeziku v različnih kombinacijah. Rezultati: Vključenih je bilo osem raziskav. V štirih raziskavah so raztezanje s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije primerjali s pasivnim statičnim raztezanjem, v eni z mišično energetsko tehniko, v eni s pasivnim statičnim raztezanjem in uporabo elastičnih lepilnih trakov, v eni s pasivnim in aktivnim statičnim raztezanjem ter v eni z aktivnim statičnim raztezanjem in raztezanjem z modificirano tehniko proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije. V dveh raziskavah so bili rezultati meritev obsega giba takoj po intervenciji boljši po raztezanju s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije, v šestih raziskavah pa med uporabljenimi tehnikami raztezanja ni bilo značilnih razlik v povečanju obsega giba. Razprava in zaključek: V našem pregledu literature se raztezanje s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije ni izkazalo za bolj učinkovito od drugih tehnik raztezanja v povečanju obsega giba. Že po eni intervenciji raztezanja lahko pričakujemo značilno povečanje obsega gibljivosti ne glede na uporabljeno tehniko raztezanja. Potrebno je izvesti raziskave visoke kakovosti, ki primerjajo učinkovitost različnih tehnik raztezanja ter se osredotočiti na dolgotrajne učinke raztezanja.

Keywords

diplomska dela;fizioterapija;tehnike raztezanja;obseg giba;aktivno raztezanje;raztezanje s tehnikami proprioceptivne nevromuskularne facilitacije;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: UL ZF - University College of Health Studies
Publisher: [Š. Berlot]
UDC: 615.8
COBISS: 5638763 Link will open in a new window
Views: 690
Downloads: 244
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Comparison of acute effects of active and other stretching techniques on range of motion - literature review
Secondary abstract: Introduction: Stretching is the most common method used to improve flexibility. The most broadly used stretching techniques are static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques include active muscle contractions of agonistic and/or antagonistic muscles in order to decrease neural activity in agonistic muscles, causing their relaxation, which allows more stretching of the agonistic muscles. Theoretically, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques may have an advantage over static stretching, because they activate the sensory receptors within muscles. It is necessary to compare the effects of this stretching technique to other stretching techniques aside from static stretching (muscle energy techniques, ballistic stretching, cyclic stretching), as it remains unclear which stretching technique is the most effective to enhance the muscle length. Purpose: To compare acute effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques with acute effects of other stretching techniques on range of motion in healthy young adults. Methods: A literature review was conducted in databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL and PEDro. Keywords were written in English in different combinations. Results: Eight trials were included. Four of the included trials compared proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques with passive static stretching, one with muscle energy technique, one with passive static stretching and kinesiotaping, one with passive and active static stretching and one with active static stretching and modified proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching technique (kinesiostretching). In two of the included trials the results immediately after intervention were in favour of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques. In six trials there were no significant differences between stretching techniques in enhancing range of motion. Discussion and conclusion: The advantages of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques over other stretching techniques in enhancing range of motion were not proved in our review. Significant gains in range of motion can be expected already after one stretching intervention regardless of the stretching technique used. High quality trials comparing the effectiveness of different stretching techniques are needed as well as focusing on long-term effects of stretching.
Secondary keywords: diploma theses;physiotherapy;stretching techniques;range of motion;active stretching;proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques;
Type (COBISS): Bachelor thesis/paper
Study programme: 0
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Zdravstvena fak., Oddelek za fizioterapijo
Pages: 28 str.
ID: 11158336