Abstract

60 Patients included in the study as per inclusive and exclusive criteria. Subjects were included after the ethical committee approval. Informed consent obtained to conduct the study. Subjects were randomly divided in to three groups Group A, Group B and Group C with 20 subjects in each group. Group A and B assessed for neural and contralateral neural mobility and Group C assessed for hamstrings mobility. Four weeks interventions had given to each groups. Group A had given Hamstrings stretch + neural mobilization, Group B had given Hamstring stretch + contralateral neural mobilization, Group C had given Hamstring stretch. Five subjects dropped out, 2 males from Group A and 3 males from Group B. All the subjects reassessed by active knee extension test. Mean of the readings taken for final analysis. Results were calculated using 0.05 level of significance. When comparing the pre and post intervention hamstring mobility between the Group A, B and C results, it was found that hamstring mobility increased more in Group A as compared to Group B and C. From this we can infer that ipsilateral neural stretch accompanied with hamstrings stretch releases ipsilateral hamstrings restriction more compared to contralateral neural stretch accompanied with hamstrings stretching and isolated hamstrings stretch.

• 1.   Richard Gajdosik, Gary Lusin: Reliability of active knee extension test: Physical Therapy Vol 63, No 7, 1085 – 1088, 1983.
• 2.   C.M. Norris, M Matthews: Inter- tester reliability of a self- monitored active knee extension test: Journal of Body Work and Movement Therapies 9, 256-259, 2005.
• 3.   Evan K. Jonson, Cinthiya M.: The slump test: The effect of head and lower extremity position on knee extension: JOSPT Vol 26, No 6, 1997.
• 4.   Nail Tucker, Duncan Reid: Reliability and measurement error of active knee extension range of motion in a modified slump test position: A pilot study: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, Vol 15, No 4, E85-E91, 2007.
• 5.   Belinda G Gabbe, Kim L. Bennell: Reliability of common lower extremity musculoskeletal screening tests: Physical Therapy in Sport 5 90 97, 2005.
• 6.   D Scott Davis, Ila Beth Andeson: Upper limb neural tension and seated slump tests: The false positive rate among healthy young adults without cervical or lumbar symptoms: The Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, Vol 16, No 3, 136-141.
• 7.   William G. Webright, Billie Jane Randolph: Comparison of nonballistic active knee extension in neural slump position and static stretch techniques on hamstring flexibility: JOSPT, Vol 26, No 1, 7-13, 1997.
• 8.   Lee Herrington, Katie Bendix: What is the normal response to structural differentiation within the slump and straight leg raise tests: Manual Therapy, 13 289–294, 2008.
• 9.   J Petersen, P Holmich: evidence based prevention of hamstring injuries in sports: British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 319-323, 2005.
• 10.   Worrell TW Smith T L: effect of hamstring stretching on hamstring muscle performance: JOSPT, 20(3), 154-9, 1994.(Abstract).
• 11.   D. Scott Davis, Paul E. Ashby: the effectiveness of 3 stretching techniques on hamstring flexibility using consistent stretching parameters: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1), 27-32, 2005.
• 12.   Belinda J. G, Kim L.B: why are older Australian football players at greater risk of hamstring injury: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9,327-333, 2006.
• 13.   Mchugh Malachy P, Kremenic: The role of mechanical and neural restraints to joint range of motion during passive stretch: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 30(6), 1998.
• 14.   Shacklock M: Clinical Neurodynamic (a new system of musculoskeletal treatment) 2005, fifth edition (Elsevier).

Data Sharing Statement

Funding