IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i22p12121-d682320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Instrumental Compression Equally Effective and Comfortable for Physiotherapists and Physiotherapy Students than Manual Compression? A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Pérez-Palomares

    (Department of Physiatry and Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, IIS Aragon, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Carolina Jiménez-Sánchez

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad San Jorge, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Ignacio Serrano-Herrero

    (Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad San Jorge, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Pablo Herrero

    (Department of Physiatry and Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, IIS Aragon, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Sandra Calvo

    (Department of Physiatry and Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, IIS Aragon, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

Abstract

The objective of this work is to compare the homogeneity of instrumental and manual compression during the simulation of a pressure release technique, measured with a dynamometer, as well as to evaluate the comparative degree of comfort by physiotherapists and physiotherapy students when performing this technique. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was carried out with physiotherapists (lecturers with clinical experience) and 4th year students of the Physiotherapy Degree at Universidad San Jorge. The amount of pressure performed and how it was maintained during 80 s with both techniques was analysed using a digital dynamometer. The degree of comfort was evaluated using a modified numeric rating scale, with higher values representing a higher degree of discomfort. Results: A total of 30 subjects participated. Significant differences were found between the techniques in terms of maintaining a constant pressure level for 80 s ( p = 0.043). A statistically significant difference was found between both techniques in the period from 45 to 80 s. Regarding the degree of discomfort, the value obtained from the students’ responses was 4.67 (1.35) for the manual technique and 1.93 (0.88) for the instrumental technique. In the case of physiotherapists, the comfort was 4.87 (2.13) for the manual technique and 3.33 (1.54) for the instrumental technique. Conclusion: The sustained manual compression necessary in manual pressure release techniques in the treatment of myofascial trigger points can be performed with assistive tools that guarantee a uniform compression maintained throughout the development of the technique and are more comfortable for physiotherapists.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Pérez-Palomares & Carolina Jiménez-Sánchez & Ignacio Serrano-Herrero & Pablo Herrero & Sandra Calvo, 2021. "Is Instrumental Compression Equally Effective and Comfortable for Physiotherapists and Physiotherapy Students than Manual Compression? A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12121-:d:682320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sara Delgado Álvarez & Jorge Velázquez Saornil & Zacarías Sánchez Milá & Gonzalo Jaén Crespo & Angélica Campón Chekroun & José Manuel Barragán Casas & Raúl Frutos Llanes & David Rodríguez Sanz, 2022. "Effectiveness of Dry Needling and Ischemic Trigger Point Compression in the Gluteus Medius in Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Short-Term Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Piotr Ożóg & Magdalena Weber-Rajek & Agnieszka Radzimińska & Aleksander Goch, 2023. "Analysis of Postural Stability Following the Application of Myofascial Release Techniques for Low Back Pain—A Randomized-Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12121-:d:682320. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.