Skip to content

Comparison of two different stretching strategies on hip extension mobility in healthy and active adults: a randomized clinical trial.

Comparison of the effects of conventional and posterior pelvic tilt stretching on reactive hip flexor force in healthy and active adults: a randomized controlled trial

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12624000202561
Enrollment
16
Registered
2024-02-29
Start date
2023-09-21
Completion date
2024-03-22
Last updated
2024-03-04

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

Achieving optimal hip extension mobility and hamstring flexibility is crucial for overall musculoskeletal health and functional movement. Limited hip extension can impact daily activities and athletic performance, while inadequate hamstring flexibility is associated with an increased risk of injury. As such, investigating effective stretching techniques to enhance hip extension and hamstring flexibility is of paramount importance. This study aims to contribute valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of posterior pelvic tilt and hip extension stretches, with the anticipation that one of these techniques may prove superior in promoting improved hip extension and hamstring flexibility. The primary objective of this study is to compare the effects of two stretching techniques, posterior pelvic tilt and hip extension, on enhancing hip extension mobility and hamstring flexibility. We hypothesize that the posterior pelvic tilt technique will yield greater improvements in hip extension mobility and hamstring flexibility compared to the hip extension technique.

Interventions

A stretch with a lower extremity was analyzed by an expert physiotherapist. This stretch was performed in conventional hip extension, in a half-knee position, but adding a posterior pelvic tilt position (posterior pelvic tilt group). Stretching was performed in two sets of 30 seconds with 30 seconds of rest between sets, performed individually for each subject (one-on-one) at the research center. Intervention throughout the study.

Sponsors

University European of Madrid
Lead SponsorUniversity

Study design

Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Prevention
Masking
Blinded (masking used) (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for this study were male and females individuals, aged between 18 and 35 years, and who maintained a training regimen of at least two days per week.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria were individuals with a history of musculoskeletal lower limb or lumbopelvic conditions within the last five years, as well as those with neuromuscular, rheumatic, cardiovascular or neurological diseases, and those who had undergone previous surgical interventions or experienced fractures in the lower extremities or abdominal region.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026