Effectiveness of Fascial Distortion Model Approach versus Counterstrain Technique on Trigger Points Pain Pressure Threshold, Range of Motion and Functional activities in Recreational Badminton Players: A Comparative Study

Myofascial Trigger Pointare classified as being active or latent, depending on their clinical characteristics. An active trigger point causes pain at rest. It is tender to palpation with a referred pain pattern that is similar to the patient’s pain complaint. This referred pain is felt not at the site of the trigger-point origin, but remote from it. The pain is often described as spreading or radiating. Referred pain is an important characteristic of a trigger point. It differentiates a trigger point from a tender point, which is associated with pain at the site of palpation only. shortening tissues may affect local cellular healing adaptations. The pathophysiology of MTrPs is not fully understood, but current hypotheses suggest that they arise from a combination of mechanical, neurological, and biochemical factors. Muscle overload, repetitive strain, poor posture, and stress are all considered potential contributors to the formation of trigger points. In response to these stressors, localized areas of muscle may undergo a state of sustained contraction, leading to the development of taut bands and the subsequent formation of trigger points. These points, when compressed or stressed, can produce local and referred pain, contributing to a wide range of chronic pain conditions, including tension headaches, neck pain, and back pain. This study seeks to address the gap by conducting a comparative investigation into the effectiveness of the FDM approach versus Counterstrain Technique in managing trigger points pain pressure threshold, ROM, and functional performance among recreational badminton players.

Null Hypothesis

H (0): There will be no significant difference in the effect of the Fascial Distortion Model approach on trigger points pain pressure threshold, range of motion and functional activities in recreational badminton players.

H (0): There will be no significant difference in the effect of the Counterstrain technique on trigger points pain pressure threshold, range of motion and functional activities in recreational badminton players.

H (0): There will be no significant difference in the effect of the Fascial Distortion Model and counterstarin technique on trigger points pain pressure threshold, range of motion and functional activities in recreational badminton players.

Alternate Hypothesis

H (1): There will be significant difference in the effect of the Fascial Distortion Model approach on trigger points pain pressure threshold, range of motion and functional activities in recreational badminton players.

H (2): There will be significant difference in the effect of the Counterstrain technique on trigger points pain pressure threshold, range of motion and functional activities in recreational badminton players.

H (3): There will be significant difference in the effect of the Fascial Distortion Model and counterstarin technique on trigger points pain pressure threshold, range of motion and functional activities in recreational badminton players.