Shin Splint
Conditions
Keywords
Football Players, Shin Splints, Pain, Sports performance
Brief summary
This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the effectiveness of Autogenic Inhibition and Reciprocal Inhibition in treating shin splints among amateur footballers aged 18-30 from SA Gardens Football Club, Lahore. Participants will be recruited through non-probability convenient sampling and randomly assigned into two groups using random number sampling. A single-blind approach will be employed, with one group receiving Autogenic Inhibition treatment and the other receiving Reciprocal Inhibition treatment over a period of four weeks, with three sessions per week. The study will measure outcomes including pain alleviation, improvement in range of motion (ROM), enhanced function, and improved sports performance. This research seeks to provide insights into the benefits of muscle energy techniques for athletes with shin splints, contributing valuable knowledge to sports medicine and rehabilitation practices.
Detailed description
Recent literature provides substantial evidence supporting the efficacy of muscle energy techniques (METs), including Autogenic Inhibition, for various musculoskeletal conditions across different populations. Robert F. et al. (2023) conducted a quasi-experimental study using a pre- and post-test design to compare Kalternborn grade III mobilization and METs in 30 patients, finding significant improvements in pain and neck function. Siddiqui M. et al. (2022) demonstrated in a randomized control trial that Autogenic Inhibition was more effective than Reciprocal Inhibition in improving pain, range of motion, and functional disability in patients with mechanical neck pain. Similarly, Osama M. et al. (2022) found Autogenic Inhibition to be the most effective among static stretching, AI-MET, and RI-MET for enhancing isometric muscle strength in neck pain patients. Majeed A. et al. (2021) showed that Autogenic Inhibition had better outcomes than static stretching for hamstring flexibility. Khaled H. Yousef et al. revealed that adding METs to conventional therapy significantly improved pain, impairment, and hip range of motion in patients with chronic discogenic sciatica. A systemic review by Thomas E. et al. (2019) confirmed METs' effectiveness in reducing chronic and acute pain and improving range of motion. Despite these positive findings, there is limited research on METs for sports-related conditions like shin splints. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the specific benefits and drawbacks of a structured MET program for shin splints in a sports environment, providing valuable insights for athletes in managing and preventing overuse and bone stress injuries efficiently.
Interventions
OTHERHeating Therapy
Heating Therapy will be performed on subjects along with PNF Exercises.
Manual Soft tissue Release will be performed on subjects along with PNF Exercises.
Sponsors
Riphah International University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Masking description
Subjects of both groups (Group A and B) will be kept unaware of the treatment type given to other group. All the information will be kept in lock and key, and will be accessible to author only.
Intervention model description
After recruitment and signing the informed consent, baseline readings of all study variables will be taken and all subjects will be assigned into 2 groups, GROUP A (received autogenic inhibition with conventional treatment) and GROUP B (received reciprocal inhibition with conventional physiotherapy treatment) randomly divided by computer-generated software.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 30 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Both genders. 2. Age 18-30 years. 3. Those who are actively taking part in sports from last 1 year. 4. Subjects who have NPRS scores from moderate pain (NPRS 4-6) to severe pain (NPRS 7- 10). 5. Subjects diagnosed with category 2 Shin splints through Shin splint scoring system (Male 2- 14, Female 6-16) and category 3 (Male 14-29, Female 17-29).
Exclusion criteria
1. History of Central or peripheral vascular disease. 2. History of lower limb fracture / Trauma (Any side) in last 6 months. 3. History of lower limb Surgery (Any side) in last 6 months. 4. History of any malignancy. 5. Leg length discrepancy. 6. Biomechanical imbalances.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pain: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) | 1st day and 12th week. | NPRS is a reliable tool when measuring pain. |
| Ranges of Motion: Goniometery | 1st day and 12th week. | The testing position will supine laying with foot in a resting position and towel rolled under ankle, the goniometer center will be on either of the malleolus. The proximal arm will be placed parallel to the ground or tibia/fibula. The distal arm will be moved with the movement of foot into dorsiflexion or plantarflexion. |
| Function: Lower Extremity Functioning Scale (LEFS) | 1st day and 12th week. | LFS is reliable tool to measure lower extremity functional status. It will take 2-5 minutes with each subject to take th readings. |
| Performance: 60m yard test | 1st day and 12th week. | 1.60m yard test Athlete to sprint as fast as possible over 60 metres after warming up for 10 minutes. The assistant marks out a 60-metre straight section on the track with cones. The assistant gives the command GO and starts the stopwatch. The athlete sprints as fast as possible over the 60 metres. The assistant stops the stopwatch as the athlete's torso crosses the finishing line and records the time. |
| Performance: Yoyo Test | 1st day and 12th week. | Yoyo test: Subject performs an appropriate warm-up. Use cones to mark out two lines 20 meters apart as per the diagram. The participants start with their foot behind one of the lines, and begin running when instructed. They continue running between the two lines, turning when signaled by the recorded beeps. After each minute or so, the pace gets quicker. If the line is not reached in time the subject must run to the line, turn and try to catch up with the pace within 2 more 'beeps. The test is stopped if the subject fails to catch up with the pace within the two ends. |
Countries
Pakistan
Contacts
Primary ContactZohaib Imran, MS SPT
Backup ContactMuzna Munir, MS SPT
Outcome results
None listed