This Study Explores Whether Static Stretching and Foam Rolling Intervention of the Calf (Dominant Leg) Can Improve Range of Motion and Balance Similarly to Treatments Applied to the Hamstring (Dominant Leg), Supporting the Concept of Myofascial Chains
NCT ID: NCT07112534
Last Updated: 2025-08-08
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
48 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-01-15
2025-06-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
SS involves holding a muscle in an elongated position for a set period, while FR is a self-massage technique using a roller or massage bar that applies pressure to soft tissues through body weight. Both techniques have been shown to increase ROM, reduce muscle stiffness, and potentially improve athletic performance and recovery.
The study also discusses the concept of tensegrity, fascia, and myofascial chains, which explain how different body structures are biomechanically connected. Fascia is described as a tissue capable of transmitting mechanical forces throughout the body, forming a continuum that supports and connects muscles, bones, and other structures. Evidence shows that tension can be transmitted through fascial connections, influencing movement and posture far from the point of force application. The SBL, described by Myers, connects the calf muscles with the hamstrings and posterior structures, implying that interventions on the calf could affect knee mobility similarly to direct hamstrings treatment.
The research aimed to verify whether SS and FR protocols applied to the calves could produce similar benefits for knee ROM and balance as those applied to the hamstrings, based on their shared fascial connection. It also sought to compare the effectiveness of FR and SS, hypothesizing greater effects for FR due to its combined compression and stretching action.
A total of 48 healthy subjects aged 20-40 years, with no recent lower limb injuries, were recruited and divided into four groups: hamstring static stretching (SSH), calf static stretching (SSC), hamstring foam rolling (FRH), and calf foam rolling (FRC). The interventions were standardized in terms of duration and intensità : 3 sets of 1 minute each with moderate intensity perceived as 7/10 on a discomfort scale, performed only on the dominant leg. SS was performed using classic stretching positions, while FR involved rolling from the popliteal fossa to the insert points of the target muscles using a BLACROLL® foam roller.
Measurements included single-leg balance (SLB) test on a posturographic platform, knee ROM in flexion and extension using an inertial sensor, both before and 5 minutes after the intervention. Balance parameters analyzed were sway path length, sway ellipse surface, mean sway speed, and other center of pressure variables.
Statistical analysis involved repeated-measures ANOVA for parametric variables and non-parametric ANOVA for balance parameters, with appropriate post hoc tests. The significance level was set at p\<0.05, and the effect size was assessed with partial eta squared.
This research provides insights into the effectiveness of targeting different muscle groups within the same myofascial chain for improving knee mobility and balance. The results are expected to clarify whether indirect treatments of the calf can replicate the effects of direct hamstring protocols and whether FR can outperform SS in terms of increasing knee ROM and improving postural control.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Effects of Foam Rolling on Ankle Dorsiflexion, Ankle Stability, and Athletic Performance in Rhythmic Gymnasts
NCT07113249
Passive Static Stretching and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation in Musculoskeletal Aspects
NCT02478606
Effects of Foam Rolling, Foam Rolling with Dynamic Movement, and Static Stretching on Plantar Flexor Range of Motion and Tissue Properties in Healthy Participants
NCT06877832
Effects of Foam Rolling on the Plantar Flexors' Properties
NCT05801302
Effects of Long-term Foam Rolling Compared to Static Stretching on Hamstring Muscle Flexibility
NCT02808923
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
FACTORIAL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
foam rolling of the calf
Foam rolling of the calf (dominante leg)
Foam rolling
Foam rolling: 3 sets of 1 minute and 30 seconds of rest between sets
Static stretching of the calf
Static stretching of the calf (dominant leg)
Static stretching
Static stretching: 3 sets of 1 minute and 30 seconds of rest between sets
foam rolling of the hamstring
foam rolling of the hamstring (dominant leg)
Foam rolling
Foam rolling: 3 sets of 1 minute and 30 seconds of rest between sets
Static stretching of the hamstring
Static stretching of the hamstring (dominant leg)
Static stretching
Static stretching: 3 sets of 1 minute and 30 seconds of rest between sets
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Static stretching
Static stretching: 3 sets of 1 minute and 30 seconds of rest between sets
Foam rolling
Foam rolling: 3 sets of 1 minute and 30 seconds of rest between sets
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
20 Years
40 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Messina
OTHER
Alberto Canzone
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Alberto Canzone
Study Coordinator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Antonino Bianco
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
University of Palermo
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Palermo
Palermo, Italy, Italy
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
PRIN 2022PZH8SX
Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT
Identifier Source: secondary_id
60646-2025
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.