RESUMEN
QUESTION: Can massage therapy reduce pain and perceived fatigue in the quadriceps of athletes after a long-distance triathlon race (Ironman)? DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessors. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four triathlon athletes who completed an entire Ironman triathlon race and whose main complaint was pain in the anterior portion of the thigh. INTERVENTION: The experimental group received massage to the quadriceps, which was aimed at recovery after competition, and the control group rested in sitting. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes were pain and perceived fatigue, which were reported using a visual analogue scale, and pressure pain threshold at three points over the quadriceps muscle, which was assessed using digital pressure algometry. RESULTS: The experimental group had significantly lower scores than the control group on the visual analogue scale for pain (MD -7 mm, 95% CI -13 to -1) and for perceived fatigue (MD -15 mm, 95% CI -21 to -9). There were no significant between-group differences for the pressure pain threshold at any of the assessment points. CONCLUSION: Massage therapy was more effective than no intervention on the post-race recovery from pain and perceived fatigue in long-distance triathlon athletes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials, RBR-4n2sxr.
Asunto(s)
Fatiga/terapia , Masaje , Fatiga Muscular , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Deportes , Adulto , Atletas , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
CONTEXT: The treatment of edema after a knee injury is usually 1 of the main objectives during rehabilitation. To assess the success of treatment, 2 methods are commonly used in clinical practice: volumetry and perimetry. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the intra- and interassessor reliability of volumetry and perimetry to assess knee volume. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 45 healthy participants (26 women) with mean age of 22.4 ± 2.8 y. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knee volume was assessed by 3 assessors (A, B, and C) with 3 methods (lower-limb volumetry [LLV], knee volumetry [KV], and knee perimetry [KP]). Assessor A was the most-experienced assessor, and assessor C, the least experienced. LLV and KV were performed with participants in the orthostatic position, while KP was performed with participants in supine. RESULTS: For the interassessor analysis, the ICC2,1 was high (.82) for KV and very high for LLV (.99) and KP (.99). For the intra-assessor analysis, ICC2,1 ranged from moderate to high for KV (.69-.83) and was very high for LLV (.99) and KP (.97-.99). CONCLUSION: KV, LLV, and KP are reliable methods, both intra- and interassessor, to measure knee volume.