Author(s):
Kamalakannan. M, Boaz. J, Koushik Kannan. M
Email(s):
kamal1712@gmail.com
DOI:
10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00210.3 
Address:
Kamalakannan. M1*, Boaz. J2, Koushik Kannan. M2
1Assistant Professor, Saveetha College of Physiotherapy, Chennai, India.
2Student, Saveetha College of Physiotherapy, Chennai, India.
*Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 13,
Issue - 3,
Year - 2020
ABSTRACT:
Aim to analyze the effects of ankle mobilization and active stretching on low back pain in pronated foot subject. Objectives to find the influenze of ankle mobilization and active stretching on low back pain among subjects with pronated foot. To find the influenze of ankle mobilization and active stretching on low back pain and quality of life among subjects with pronated foot. Methodology: 30 participants with pronated foot along with low back pain were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were equally divided into two groups namely control group (group-A) and experimental group (group-B). Control group would be given with conventional therapy (IFT). In experimental group along with conventional therapy gave ankle mobilization and active stretching of calf muscles, and the participants performance was measured with visual analog scale for pain and oswestry disability index for quality of life. The values were tabulated and calculated using statistical formula and the graph was plotted according to the value and the result was statistically significant. Statistical analysis: Statistical Analysis of post-test, visual analog scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI) revealed that there is statically significant difference seen between Group A and Group B. Result: The post-test mean value of VAS between Group-A and Group-B is 2.93 and 1.53 respectively which has a statistically significant difference showing the intervention of Group-B effective, and In ODI 80% of participants came with severe disability (41%-60% ODI) moves to moderate and minimal disability (10%-25%) which has a statistically significant difference showing the intervention of Group-B effective and Hence Group-B more effective than Group-A Conclusion: From the result, it has been concluded that ankle mobilization and active stretching conventional therapy (GROUP B) is more effective than conventional therapy (GROUP A) in decreasing pain, and increasing quality of life in subjects with pronated foot.
Cite this article:
Kamalakannan. M, Boaz. J, Koushik Kannan. M. Influence of Ankle Mobilization and Active Stretching on Low Back Pain in Pronated Foot Subjects. Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2020; 13(3): 1142-1146. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00210.3
Cite(Electronic):
Kamalakannan. M, Boaz. J, Koushik Kannan. M. Influence of Ankle Mobilization and Active Stretching on Low Back Pain in Pronated Foot Subjects. Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2020; 13(3): 1142-1146. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00210.3 Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2020-13-3-15
REFERNCE:
1. Wheeler AH. Diagnosis and
management of low back pain and sciatica. American Family Physician. 1995; 52(5):1333-41.
2. Fordyce WE, Brockway JA, Bergman
JA, Spengler D. Acute back pain: a control-group comparison of behavioral vs
traditional management methods. J Behavioral Med. 1986; 9(2):127-40.
3. Menz HB, et al. Foot
posture, foot function and low back pain: the Framingham Foot Study. Rheumatol
(Oxford, England). 2013; 52(12):2275-82.
4. Brantingham JW, et al.
Sagittal plane blockage of the foot, ankle and hallux and foot alignment-prevalence
and association with low back pain. J Chiropractic Med. 2006; 5(4):1237.
5.
Cailliet R. Low back pain syndrome: FA Davis Company; 1988. 6. Cibulka
MT. Low back pain and its relation to the hip and foot. J Orthop Sports Phy
Ther. 1999; 29(10):595-601
6.
Mueller M, Host J, Norton B. Navicular drop as a composite measure of excessive
pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Association. 1993;83(4):198-202.
7.
Scott J, Huskisson EC. Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Ann
Rheum Dis. 1979; 38(6):560.
8.
DeLorme TL, Schwab RS, Watkins AL. The response of the quadriceps femoris
to progressive resistance exercises in poliomyelitis patients. J Bone Joint
Surg Am. 1948; 30(4):834-47.
9.
Kuukkanen T, Malkia E. Effects of a three-month therapeutic exercise
programmed on flexibility in subjects with low back pain. Physiotherapy
research international. J Res Clin Phy Ther. 2000; 5(1):46-61.
10.
Yoon KS, Park SD. The effects of ankle mobilization and active stretching
on the difference of weight-bearing distribution, low back pain and flexibility
in pronated-foots subjects. J Exer Rehabil. 2013; 9(2):292-7.
11.
Bolz S, Davies GJ. Leg length differences and
correlation with total leg strength. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1984; 6:123–129.
12.
Hwang YT, Yoo GT, Lee MY, Park LJ. The effect
of heat therapy in stretching exercise on lumbar flexibility. J Rehabil Sci. 2007;
25:103–114.
13.
Hyung IH, Kim HS, Lee GC. The effect of
muscle activities and dynamic balance ability with mobilization and active
exercise on pronation foot. Korean Soc Sport Leis Stud. 2009; 37:1023–1032.
14.
Kotoulas M. The use and misuse of the term’s
manipulation and mobilization in the literature establishing their efficacy in
the treatment of lumbar spine disorders. Phys Ther Canada. 2002; 4:53–61
15.
Lattanza L, Gray GW, Kantner RM. Closed
versus open kinematic chain measurements of subtalar joint eversion:
implications for clinical practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1988; 9:310–314.