Acute Effects of Tissue Flossing on Ankle Range of Motion and Tensiomyography Parameters

Abstract

Context: Recently, a few papers have suggested that tissue flossing (TF) acutely improves range of motion (ROM) and neuromuscular performance. However, the effects of TF on muscle contractile properties are yet to be defined. Objective: To investigate the acute effects of TF on ankle ROM and associated muscle gastrocnemius medialis displacement and contraction time assessed with tensiomyography. Design: Crossover design in a single session. Setting: University laboratory. Participants: Thirty recreationally trained volunteers (age 23.00 [4.51] y). Intervention: Active ankle plantar flexion and dorsiflexion were performed for the duration of 2 minutes (3 sets, 2-min rest between sets), while a randomly selected ankle was wrapped using TF elastic band (BAND) and the other ankle served as a control condition (CON). Main Outcome Measures: Participants performed an active ankle plantar flexion and dorsiflexion ROM test and muscle gastrocnemius medialis tensiomyography displacement and contraction time measurement pre, 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes after the floss band application. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between BAND and CON conditions (active ankle plantar flexion ROM: P = .09; active ankle dorsiflexion ROM: P = .85); however, all ROM measurements were associated with medium or large effect sizes in favor of BAND compared with CON. No significant changes were observed in the tensiomyography parameters. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that TF applied to the ankle is a valid method to increase ROM and at the same time maintaining muscular stiffness.

Tissue flossing of the thigh increases isometric strength acutely but has no effects on flexibility or jump height

“…However, the Thomas test did not show a change in either the knee or the hip ROM. One possible explanation for these contradictory results when compared to the studies which were dealing with flossing of the ankle joints Driller & Overmayer, 2017;Pakarklis & Šiupšinskas, 2018;Vogrin et al, 2020) might be that our participants received a flossing treatment of the soft tissue only, rather than also the joint. Since we flossed our participants from 4.5 to 5 cm of the proximal edge of the patella to the trochanter major, neither the bony structures of the hip joint nor the knee joint were flossed.…”

“…While an increase in ROM corresponding to a decrease in PRT (at the same angle pre-and post-stretch) has been associated with a decrease in muscle stiffness (Kay et al, 2015;Konrad et al, 2017) or tendon stiffness (Kato et al, 2010) following a single static stretch (Kay et al, 2015;Konrad et al, 2017), an increase in ROM and no change in PRT (at the same angle pre-and post-stretch) is commonly associated with an altered perception of stretch and pain (Magnusson et al, 1996). Although Vogrin et al (2020) showed an increase in ROM of the ankle joint following a flossing treatment, they could not detect any changes of muscle stiffness (measured by tensiomyography) in the gastrocnemius medialis. However, the PRT of the ankle joint is affected by several muscles and connective tissues, including tendons, ligaments, and joint capsules.…”

Effects of Tissue Flossing on the Healthy and Impaired Musculoskeletal System: A Scoping Review

“…The results of the individual studies show that 15 out of the 29 range of motion measures showed a significant increase (individual results of the studies as pre-post comparison) following the floss band application (see Table 2, green color). However, out of these 15 measures, in three measures, the same increase in range of motion was also found in the control group (no floss band applied, but a stretch or movement was performed) (Kiefer et al, 2017;Pakarklis and Šiupšinskas, 2018;Vogrin et al, 2021). In most of the included studies, the subjects were asked to perform a movement or a stretch during both the flossing condition and the control condition (see Table 1 for more information).…”

“…Out of these 11 measures, seven were significantly increased. By considering just the main measure of each study on ankle flossing (weight bearing lunge test in Driller and Overmayer, 2017;Mills et al, 2019; dorsiflexion range of motion in Vogrin et al, 2021), the mean change was a very large increase in the dorsiflexion range of motion of 11.17% (95% CI, 4.25 to 18.63%). With regard to calf flossing, nine measures from four studies are presented in Table 2.…”

“…This indicates different mechanisms for the changes in the range of motion when comparing flossing and stretching. Moreover, in the study of Vogrin et al (2021), the subjects flossed the ankle joint, and the authors reported an increase in the range of motion but no change in muscle stiffness. However, in this study, no torque angle curves or passive torque data at the end range of motion were reported.…”