Effect of Hold Relax Technique and Active Release Technique in Post Immobilization Shoulder Stiffness in Patients of Coastal Life
Main Article Content
Background: Shoulder tightness in individuals living on the coast can be caused by a variety of circumstances such as trauma, joint disorders, or overuse. Treatment options appear to include physiotherapy, medication, and, in severe situations, surgery. Shoulder stiffness after immobilisation is a major cause of functional disability following shoulder injuries. A stiff shoulder makes it difficult for patients to position their hand in space for appropriate upper-extremity use. The study's goal was to compare the hold-relax technique versus the active release technique (ART) in patients with post-immobilization shoulder stiffness. Methodology: For this study, 20 patients diagnosed with post-immobilization shoulder stiffness from the MGMCRI orthopaedic department were selected as subjects. Following the selection process, the participants were divided into two groups: group A (Hold Relax Technique) and group B (Active Release Technique) through the odd-even method. The Hold Relax Technique group was given for 3 days, 1 session per day, for a duration of 20 minutes. The active release technique was given for 3 days, 1 session per day, for a duration of 20 minutes. Both techniques were given for a period of six weeks, so in total there was 18 sessions for each technique. The study's outcome measures were pain and range of motion. To collect data for this investigation, the goniometer and the NPRS were employed as measurement equipment. The comparative investigation between groups A and B reveals a significant difference in pain efficacy, abduction, and external rotation with a P value of 0.0001. Conclusion: The active release technique, as a novel paraprofessional approach, outperformed the hold-relax technique in terms of pain, abduction range of motion, and external rotation range of motion in coastal patients with post-immobilization shoulder stiffness.
Bautmans I, Jansen B, Van Keymolen B, Mets T. Reliability and clinical correlates of 3D-accelerometry based gait analysis outcomes according to age and fall-risk. Gait Posture. 2011 Mar;33(3):366-72. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.12.003
McFadyen BJ, Hegeman J, Duysens J. Dual task effects for asymmetric stepping on a split-belt treadmill. Gait Posture. 2009 Oct;30(3):340-4. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.06.004.
Özkal Ö, Erdem MM, Kısmet K, Topuz S. Comparison of upper limb burn injury versus simulated pathology in terms of gait and footprint parameters. Gait Posture. 2020 Jan;75:137-141. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.10.027.
Ford MP, Wagenaar RC, Newell KM. Arm constraint and walking in healthy adults. Gait Posture. 2007 Jun;26(1):135-41. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.08.008.
Eke-Okoro ST, Gregoric M, Larsson LE. Alterations in gait resulting from deliberate changes of arm-swing amplitude and phase. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1997 Oct;12(7-8):516-521. doi: 10.1016/s0268-0033(97)00050-8.
Trehan SK, Wolff AL, Gibbons M, Hillstrom HJ, Daluiski A. The effect of simulated elbow contracture on temporal and distance gait parameters. Gait Posture. 2015 Mar;41(3):791-4. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.02.010.
Eke-Okoro, S.T., Gregorič, M., & Larsson, L.E. (1997). Alterations in gait resulting from deliberate changes of arm-swing amplitude and phase. Clinical biomechanics, 12 7-8, 516-521 .
Umberger BR. Effects of suppressing arm swing on kinematics, kinetics, and energetics of human walking. J Biomech. 2008 Aug 7;41(11):2575-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.05.024.
Outline of Fractures, Including Joint Injuries. Postgrad Med J. 1957 May;33(379):247. PMCID: PMC2501412.
Hindle KB, Whitcomb TJ, Briggs WO, Hong J. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF): Its Mechanisms and Effects on Range of Motion and Muscular Function. J Hum Kinet. 2012 Mar;31:105-13. doi: 10.2478/v10078-012-0011-y.
Elsevier M. Mosby's Medical Dictionary 20098th edition Elsevier