Effects of PIR and PFS on Pain, ROM, and Disabilty in Tight Hamstring Syndrome

Not Applicable

Not yet recruiting

• Conditions: Hamstrings; Flexibility; Range of Motion; Disability

• Registration Number: NCT06796491
• Lead Sponsor: Riphah International University

Brief Summary

This randomized clinical trial aims to compare the effects of post-isometric relaxation (PIR) and post-facilitation stretch (PFS) on pain, range of motion, and disability in individuals with tight hamstring syndrome. Conducted at Riphah Rehabilitation Clinic, Lahore, participants aged 18-35 years with posterior thigh pain will be divided into two groups. Both groups will receive hot pack therapy and core strengthening exercises, with Group A receiving PIR and Group B receiving PFS. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and after 4 weeks using NPRS, a disability questionnaire, and a goniometer, with data analyzed using SPSS version 25.

Detailed Description

Both PIR and PFS are subtypes of Muscle Energy Techniques (MET) that have shown potential in improving muscle flexibility and reducing discomfort. This study aims to address the impacts of PIR and PFS on pain, ROM, and disability in patients with tight hamstrings syndrome, providing valuable insights for clinical practice and enhancing the understanding of effective interventions for this common musculoskeletal issue.

The current literature on stretching techniques for musculoskeletal conditions reveals several gaps specifically relevant to the effects of Post Isometric Relaxation (PIR) and Post Facilitation Stretch (PFS) on tight hamstrings syndrome. Despite the high incidence of hamstring tightness and its association with conditions such as nonspecific low back pain, there is limited research directly comparing the effects of Post Isometric Relaxation (PIR) and Post Facilitation Stretch (PFS) on this condition. While studies have explored various stretching methods such as Muscle Energy Technique (MET), static stretching, and myofascial release, there is a notable lack of direct comparative research between PIR and PFS in patients with tight hamstrings. Additionally, existing studies had often focused on immediate or short-term outcomes, with limited investigation into the long-term effects of these techniques on pain, range of motion (ROM), and disability.

Study Timeline

• Status Verified: 2025-01
• Study First Submitted: 2025-01-22
• Study First Submitted QC: 2025-01-22
• Last Update Submitted: 2025-01-22
• Study First Posted: 2025-01-28
• Last Update Posted: 2025-01-28
• Study Start: 2025-02-01
• Primary Completion: 2025-04-01
• Study Completion: 2025-05-01

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 46

Inclusion Criteria

• Both male and female
• Age between 18 to 35 years(45)
• Bilateral hamstring muscle tightness
• Individuals having lack of Active knee extension more than 20 degrees(46)

Exclusion Criteria

• Low back pain radiating to the back of thigh
• History of fracture, dislocation of hip(47)
• Acute or chronic hamstring injury
• Any neurological disease(48)
• Congenital deformity of the lower limb
• Inflammatory condition that affects motion
• A history of a cervical whiplash injury(45)

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Numeric pain rating scale	4th week	The severity of pain will be measured by using the NPRS scale, which goes from '0' (meaning there is no pain) to 10'' (meaning there is most agony possible) ("pain is severe as you can imagine"). It was accepted that the scale was convenient for determining patients' pain thresholds. The NPRS scale has a score range of 0 to 10. It was a valid and reliable tool. Va;idity ranging from 0.79 to 0.95 and reliability from 0.67 to 0.96.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Active Knee Extension Test	4th week	AKE is an active test considered as a gold standard for hamstring flexibility assessment. The AKE test interrater reliability was excellent, with ICC2, values of 0.87 (0.58-0.97; 95%CI) for the dominant knee and 0.81 (0.41-0.94; 95%CI) for the nondominant knee and standard error of measurement (SEM) values of 3.5° (18.0°- 31.7°; 95%CI) and 3.8° (16.9°-31.7°; 95%CI) respectively. Minimal detectable change was between 9.7° and 10.5°. No significant difference in mean AKE measurements was noted between the first and second testing sessions for both raters (Table 4). The ICC3,1 values ranged from 0.78 to 0.92.
Modified Oswestry Disability Index	4th week	The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders. The ODI remains a valid and vigorous measure of condition-specific disability. The authors recommend the use of version 2.0. The data presented are a guide to the power of the instrument to detect meaningful changes in disability status.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Zafar Hospital lahore; 🇵🇰 Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan