Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Although lumbar mobilization (LM) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) are used to increase flexibility in clinical practice, remains unclear which technic is the most effective. This study aims to verify and compare the immediate effect of unilateral LM and hold-relax PNF on hamstring flexibility.
METHODS: A randomized, blinded, crossover trial carried out in university research laboratory. Thirty healthy young adults were randomly allocated to three groups, each group receive unilateral, central posterior-anterior LM grade III to the L4 joint, hold-relax PNF and control intervention in a different order with 48 h of washout period. Hamstring flexibility was measured using photogrammetry before and immediately after intervention through range of motion (ROM) change in the Straight Leg Raise Test. T-tests were used to compare ROM within groups, and ANOVA repeated measure followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests was used for between groups comparison.
RESULTS: Two participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 28 for analysis (21.6 ± 2.2 years-old). LM increased 4.5° (95% CI 2.3-6.5°, p = 0.001, d = 0.29) on the straight leg raise test and PNF increased 10.0° (95% CI 7.7-12.2°, p = 0.001, d = 0.7). No statistically significant increase was observed on the control group (p = 0.151, d = 0.08). Further, the technique used significantly influenced ROM (p = 0.001, η²p = 0.37). On the between group analysis, PNF was better than LM (p = 0.005) and control (p = 0.001), whereas LM was no better than the control for hamstring flexibility (p = 0.68).
CONCLUSIONS: Although hold-relax PNF and unilateral LM techniques increased ROM, hold-relax PNF was more effective on increasing hamstring flexibility.
METHODS: A randomized, blinded, crossover trial carried out in university research laboratory. Thirty healthy young adults were randomly allocated to three groups, each group receive unilateral, central posterior-anterior LM grade III to the L4 joint, hold-relax PNF and control intervention in a different order with 48 h of washout period. Hamstring flexibility was measured using photogrammetry before and immediately after intervention through range of motion (ROM) change in the Straight Leg Raise Test. T-tests were used to compare ROM within groups, and ANOVA repeated measure followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests was used for between groups comparison.
RESULTS: Two participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 28 for analysis (21.6 ± 2.2 years-old). LM increased 4.5° (95% CI 2.3-6.5°, p = 0.001, d = 0.29) on the straight leg raise test and PNF increased 10.0° (95% CI 7.7-12.2°, p = 0.001, d = 0.7). No statistically significant increase was observed on the control group (p = 0.151, d = 0.08). Further, the technique used significantly influenced ROM (p = 0.001, η²p = 0.37). On the between group analysis, PNF was better than LM (p = 0.005) and control (p = 0.001), whereas LM was no better than the control for hamstring flexibility (p = 0.68).
CONCLUSIONS: Although hold-relax PNF and unilateral LM techniques increased ROM, hold-relax PNF was more effective on increasing hamstring flexibility.
摘要：
背景：尽管在临床实践中使用腰椎动员（LM）和本体感觉神经肌肉促进（PNF）来增加灵活性，尚不清楚哪种技术最有效。本研究旨在验证和比较单侧LM和保持松弛PNF对腿筋柔韧性的直接影响。
方法：随机，失明,交叉试验在大学研究实验室进行。将30名健康青年随机分为三组，每个小组接受单方面的，L4关节的中央前后LMIII级，保持放松PNF和控制干预以不同的顺序进行48小时的冲洗期。通过直腿抬高测试中的运动范围（ROM）变化，在干预之前和之后立即使用摄影测量法测量腿筋的柔韧性。T检验用于比较组内的ROM，和方差分析重复测量后Bonferroni事后检验用于组间比较。
结果：两名参与者失访，剩下28个用于分析（21.6±2.2岁）。LM增加4.5°（95%CI2.3-6.5°，p=0.001，d=0.29）在直腿抬高试验中，PNF增加了10.0°（95％CI7.7-12.2°，p=0.001，d=0.7）。对照组没有观察到统计学上的显着增加（p=0.151，d=0.08）。Further,使用的技术显着影响ROM（p=0.001，η²p=0.37）。关于组间分析，PNF优于LM(p=0.005)和对照(p=0.001)，而LM的腿筋柔韧性并不比对照组好（p=0.68）。
结论：尽管保持松弛PNF和单边LM技术增加了ROM，保持放松PNF对增加腿筋柔韧性更有效。
方法：随机，失明,交叉试验在大学研究实验室进行。将30名健康青年随机分为三组，每个小组接受单方面的，L4关节的中央前后LMIII级，保持放松PNF和控制干预以不同的顺序进行48小时的冲洗期。通过直腿抬高测试中的运动范围（ROM）变化，在干预之前和之后立即使用摄影测量法测量腿筋的柔韧性。T检验用于比较组内的ROM，和方差分析重复测量后Bonferroni事后检验用于组间比较。
结果：两名参与者失访，剩下28个用于分析（21.6±2.2岁）。LM增加4.5°（95%CI2.3-6.5°，p=0.001，d=0.29）在直腿抬高试验中，PNF增加了10.0°（95％CI7.7-12.2°，p=0.001，d=0.7）。对照组没有观察到统计学上的显着增加（p=0.151，d=0.08）。Further,使用的技术显着影响ROM（p=0.001，η²p=0.37）。关于组间分析，PNF优于LM(p=0.005)和对照(p=0.001)，而LM的腿筋柔韧性并不比对照组好（p=0.68）。
结论：尽管保持松弛PNF和单边LM技术增加了ROM，保持放松PNF对增加腿筋柔韧性更有效。
