EFFECT OF SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SESSIONS OF SELF-MYOFASCIAL RELEASE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Oliveira, Raphael Ferreira de; Mota, Gustavo R.; Carvalho, Wellington Roberto Gomes de; Bertochi, Gabriel Felipe Arantes; Sasaki, Jeffer Eidi

doi:10.1590/1517-8692202228042021_0114

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Systematic Review, Rehabilitation • Rev Bras Med Esporte 28 (4) • Jul-Aug 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-8692202228042021_0114 copy

EFFECT OF SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SESSIONS OF SELF-MYOFASCIAL RELEASE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

EFECTO DE UNA SESIÓN Y DE MÚLTIPLES SESIONES DE AUTOLIBERACIÓN MIOFASCIAL: REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Self-myofascial release with a roller has been used as a tool to accelerate recovery. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate how one session or multiple sessions of self-myofascial release with a roller affect the recovery of an athlete´s performance. The research was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, BVS, Embase, SPORTDiscus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases using the terms: foam rolling, foam roller, and self-myofascial release combined with recovery, exercise, fatigue, and sport and acute effects, chronic effects and performance, resulting in 12,020 articles. After checking the inclusion criteria, 40 studies were selected and analyzed. It was concluded that multiple sessions of self-myofascial release with a roller are more effective in recovering lower limb power and speed performance than just one session. A single session is more effective for recovering strength performance than multiple sessions. Moreover, both single and multiple sessions showed similar results in the recovery of agility, pain, flexibility, blood lactate removal, and perception of recovery. Finally, multiple sessions between sets of resistance exercise seem to reduce performance, decreasing the number of repetitions and resistance to fatigue, while a single session did not produce a significant effect. Self-myofascial release with a roller demonstrates potential for speeding up the recovery process of athletes. Future studies should evaluate the effect of the regular use of self-myofascial release with a roller on performance recovery. Level of evidence II; Systematic review.

Keywords:
Manipulation therapy; Recovery of function; Physical performance

Author	Objective	Sample	Outline	Training Protocol	SMR Protocol	Muscle Group Treated	Evaluation of Variables	Outcome
MANIATAKIS et al.,¹²12 Maniatakis A, Mavraganis N, Kallistratos E, Mandalidis D, Mylonas K, Angelopoulos P, et al. The effectiveness of Ergon Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization, foam rolling, and athletic elastic taping in improving volleyball players’ shoulder range of motion and throwing performance: a pilot study on elite athletes. J Phys Ther Sci. 2020;32(10):611-4.2020	Investigate the effectiveness of IASTM, SMR and EB at ROM shoulder and throwing performance in volleyball players	15 elite volleyball players (Age= 24 ± 4,54 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR, IASTM or EB	Daily volleyball training sessions	– Total: 10 min – 9 x 60 s – Pressure BW – Before the volleyball training session – Roller	-Shoulders	-IM after RP	> ROM in the external rotation of the shoulder in SMR and IASTM compared EB pre to post > ROM in the shoulder flexion in SMR and IASTM compared EB pre to post
YANAOKA et al.,¹³13 Yanaoka T, Yoshimura A, Iwata R, Fukuchi M, Hirose, N. The effect of foam rollers of varying densities on range of motion recovery. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;26:64-71. 2020	Compare the effect of different SMR rolls on ROM	10 active participants (Age= 22,1 ± 1,4 years old)	Crossover trial: medium dens SMR or high dens SMR with contralateral lower limb as control	LIST -loughborough intermittent shuttle test	Total: 2 min SMR – 2 x 60 s unilateral rest 30 s – IM after TP – Medium and High Dens Roll – Pressure force from 45% to 55% of body weight	-Hamstrings	– IM after TP – IM after RP – 20 min RP – 60 min RP – 24 h after RP – 48 h after RP	> ROM hip SMR (0, 20, 60 min e 24, 48 h) compared CON No significant difference in PS and CK
NAKAMURA et al.,¹⁴14 Nakamura M, Yasaka K, Kiyono R, Onuma R, Yahata K, Sato S, et al. The Acute Effect of Foam Rolling on Eccentrically-Induced Muscle Damage. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):75. 2021	Detect the acute effect of 90 s of SMR on soreness and muscle function of the quadriceps	17 healthy and sedentary men (Age= 21,1 ± 0,5 years old)	Pre and post test	6 x 10 maximum repetitions of knee extension (eccentric exercise)	Total: 90 s SMR – 3 x 30 s unilateral rest 30 s – 48 h after TP – Plastic core roller – Pressure BW with 7 out of 10 on the numerical rating scale (0 to 10)	-Quadriceps	– 48 h after TP – IM after RP	> MVCC, MVIC and ROM knee pre to post SMR < PS on palpation, contraction and stretching (-22.5 mm) pre to post SMR
PELANA et al.,¹⁵15 Pelana R, Apriantono T, Bagus B, Juniarsyah AD, Ihsani SI. Effects of foam rolling on blood lactate concentration in elite futsal players. Hum Mov. 2021;22(1):70-7. 2021	Evaluate the use of SMR in performance recovery and lactate reduction in futsal athletes	30 futsal athletes (Age= 20 a 23 years old)	controlled trial: SMR or AR	Sprint 20 m and agility T-Test	Total: 10 min SMR – 1 x 60 s each muscle group of each leg rest 15 s – IM after TP – Non-smooth high-dens roller – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius	– IM after RP – 24 h after RP	↑ lactate removal SMR compared to AR No significant difference in agility and sprint
WATTIMENA; WINATA,¹⁶16 Wattimena FY, Winata B. Effect of Hot-Water Immersion and Foam Rolling on Recovery in Amateur Sepaktakraw Players. Int J Hum Mov Sports Sci. 2020;8(6):498-504.2020	Compare HWI and SMR in the recovery of Sepak takraw athletes	18 sepak takraw athletes (Age= 18 a 20 years old)	controlled trial: HWI or SMR or PR	Takraw sepak game	– Total: 10 min SMR – 1 x 60 s each muscle group of each leg rest 30 s – IM after TP – Non-smooth roll – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Abductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius	– IM after TP – 15 min after RP	↑ Lactate removal HWI and SMR compared to PR > SPR HWI and SMR compared to PR
ADAMCZYK et al.,¹⁷17 Adamczyk JG, Gryko K, Boguszewski D. Does the type of foam roller influence the recovery rate, thermal response and DOMS prevention? PloS One. 2020;15(6):e0235195. 2020	Determine which type of SMR roller is effective in lactate removal and DOMS prevention	33 participants untrained and healthy males (Age= 19 a 25 years old)	Controlled trial: PR or Smooth SMR or Non-smooth SMR	Squats with full effort jumps in 1 min	– Total: 12 min SMR – 1 x 60 s each muscle group of each leg. – IM after TP – Smooth and non-smooth rolls – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius – Iliotibial tract	– IM after RP – 24 h after RP – 48 h after RP – 72 h after RP – 96 h after RP	↑ removal lactate non-smooth SMR and smooth SMR compared to PR > skin temperature in smooth and non-smooth SMR compared to PR after 30 min of SMR < PS Smooth (48 h to 96 h) and non-smooth (24 h to 96 h) SMR compared to PR
DE BENITO; VALLDECABRES,¹⁸18 de Benito AM, Valldecabres R. Effect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8000. 2019	Determine the effects of SMR with and without vibration after a fatigue-inducing protocol	24 active and healthy participants (Age= 18 a 28 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR with or without vibration	30 Reps lunges for min until voluntary fatigue	– Total: 4 min SMR – 2 x 60 s each muscle group rest 30 s – IM after TP – Dense roll – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings	– IM após FP – IM after RP	↑ Flex ankle and hamstrings
KALÉN et al.,⁷7 Kalén A, Pérez-Ferreirós A, Barcala-Furelos R, Fernández-Méndez M, Padrón-Cabo A, Prieto JA, et al. How can lifeguards recover better? A cross-over study comparing resting, running, and foam rolling. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(12):1887-91. 2017	Compare the effectiveness of RP, RA or SMR in removing lactate after an aquatic rescue.	12 lifeguard (Age= 24 ± 4,9 years old)	Crossover trial: AR, PR or SMR	100 m aquatic rescue	– Total: 20 min SMR – 1 min each leg – IM after aquatic rescue – High dens roll – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract	– IM after FP – IM after RP	< lactate concentration in SMR and AR compared to PR No significant difference RPE
LAFFAYE et al.,¹⁹19 Laffaye G, Da Silva DT, Delafontaine A. Self-Myofascial Release Effect With Foam Rolling on Recovery After High-Intensity Interval Training. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1287. 2019	Assess the impact of SMR on a lower limb immediately after HIIT	20 healthy participants (Age= 24,45 ± 3,35 years old)	Contralateral lower limb as control	8 x 20 s squat 10 s of rest	– Total: 4 min SMR – 2 x 60 s each muscle group of the dominant leg – IM after TP – Non-smooth high dens roller – Pressure BW	– FLT – Rectus femoris and sartorius	– IM after RP – 24 h after RP – 48 h after RP	No significant difference VJ and ROM < PS after 24 h SMR leg compared to control leg
D’AMICO; PAOLONE,²⁰20 D’Amico A, Paolone V. The Effect of Foam Rolling on Recovery Between Two Eight Hundred Metre Runs. J Hum Kinet. 2017;57(1):97-105. 2017	Examine SMR impact on recovery between two 800 m runs	16 trained participants (Age= 20,5 ± 0,5 years old)	Crossover trial: PR or SMR	800m treadmill run	– Total: 10 min SMR – 30 s each muscle group. – IM after run – EVA roll – Pressure BW	– Hip flexors – Quadriceps – Iliotibial tract – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius	– IM after first run e IM before RP – IM after second run	No significant difference in lactate removal, running hip extension and running time
REY et al.,²¹21 Rey E, Padrón-Cabo A, Costa PB, Barcala-Furelos R. The Effects of Foam Rolling as a Recovery Tool in Professional Soccer Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(8):2194-2201. 2019	Examine the effectiveness of SMR and PR interventions performed immediately after a training session	18 professional soccer players (Age= 26,6 ± 3,3 years old)	Controlled trial: PR or SMR	standardized soccer training	– Total: 20 min SMR – 2 x 45 s rest 15 s each muscle group each leg. – IM after TP – High dens roll – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius	-24 h after RP	SPR Maintenance, PS maintenance, Maintenance agility after 24 h No significant difference VJ, Sprint and Flex
FLECKENSTEIN et al.,²²22 Fleckenstein J, Wilke J, Vogt L, Banzer W. Preventive and Regenerative Foam Rolling are Equally Effective in Reducing Fatigue-Related Impairments of Muscle Function following Exercise. J of Sport Sci Med. 2017;16(4):474-9. 2017	To compare the effects of a single preventive or regenerative SMR session on exercise-induced neuromuscular exhaustion	44 healthy and physically active participants (23 men age = 24.8 ± 2.3 years old and 22 women age = 25 ± 2 years old)	Controlled trial: PR, SMR antes FP or SMR after FP	Functional agility short-term fatigue protocol (FAST-FP)	– Total: 5 min SMR – 30 s each muscle group, in both legs-IM após PF – Roll – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gastrocnemius	-IM after FP and 5 min after FP or IM after RP and 5 min after RP	< MVIC reduction IM after FP and 5 min after FP No significant difference PS and VJ
JO et al.,²³23 Jo E, Juache GA, Saralegui DE, Weng D, Falatoonzadeh S. The Acute Effects of Foam Rolling on Fatigue-Related Impairments of Muscular Performance. Sports (Basel, Switzerland). 2018;6(4):112. 2018	Examine the effects of SMR IM after strenuous activity on fatigue-related muscle performance	25 healthy individuals (Age = 18 to 25 years old)	Crossover trial: PR or SMR	Treadmill maximal effort protocol and 3 x 10 reps of deep jumps	– Total: 10 min SMR – 2 x 30 s each muscle group – IM after maximum effort protocol – High dens plastic core roller – Pressure BW	– Hamstrings – Quadriceps – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gastrocnemius	-IM after RP	< Velocity decline, power and peak power in VJ No significant difference in dynamic reaction
ROMERO-MORALEDA et al.,²⁴24 Romero-Moraleda B, Gonzalez-Garcia J, Cuellar-Rayo A, Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Munoz-Garcia D, Morencos E. Effects of Vibration and Non-Vibration Foam Rolling on Recovery after Exercise with Induced Muscle Damage. J Sports sci Med. 2019;18(1):172-80. 2019	Compare the effects between SMR without and with vibration after causing muscle damage	38 healthy participants (Age = 22.2±3.2 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR without or with vibration	10 x 10 reps of eccentric squats	– Total: 10 min SMR – 5 x 60 s rest for 30 s, on both legs. – 48 h after TP – Polystyrene roller – Pressure BW	-Quadriceps	-48 h after TP e IM after RP	< PS, > VJ height and ROM hip (active and passive) and knee (active) > Passive PS and lower pain threshold in SMR compared to vibrating roller
ROMERO-MORALEDA et al.,²⁵25 Romero-Moraleda B, La Touche R, Lerma-Lara S, Ferrer-Peña R, Paredes V, Peinado AB, et al. Neurodynamic mobilization and foam rolling improved delayed-onset muscle soreness in a healthy adult population: a randomized controlled clinical trial. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3908. 2017	Compare the immediate effects of a Neurodynamic Mobilization or SMR treatment after DOMS	32 healthy participants (Age= 22.6 ± 2.2 years old)	Controlled trial: Neurodynamic Mobilization or SMR	5 x 20 reps in box jumps (0.5m) 2 min rest between sets	– Total: 10 min SMR – 5 x 60 s rest for 30 s on both legs – 48 h after PT – Polystyrene roller – Pressure BW	-Quadriceps	-48 h after TP e IM after RP	< PS SMR and Neurodynamic Mobilization group compared to pre TP ↑ of leg strength ↑ MVIC of the rectus femoris SMR
AKINCI et al.,²⁶26 Akinci B, Zenginler Yazgan Y, Altinoluk T. The effectiveness of three different recovery methods on blood lactate, acute muscle performance, and delayed-onset muscle soreness: a randomized comparative study. J Sports Med PhysFit. 2020;60(3):345-54. 2020	Compare AR, neuromuscular electrical stimulation and SMR in healthy young people	45 healthy young participants (Age= 20 a 25 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR ou AR ou neuromuscular electrical stimulation	Circuit based on high intensity training	– Total: 15 min SMR – 90 s each muscle group in both legs. – IM after circuit – Polyurethane and polypropylene roller – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract	– IM after RP (Flex, strength and resistance) – 5 and 20 min after RP (Lactate) – IM, 24 and 48 h after RP (PS)	< Flex, hamstring strength and squat resistance SMR compared to neuromuscular electrical stimulation and RA No significant difference PS and lactate
LEE et al.,²⁷27 Lee EJ, Van Iterson EH, Baker SE, Kasak AJ, Taylor NE, Kang C, et al. Foam rolling is an effective recovery tool in trained distance runners. Sport Sci Health. 2020;16(1):105-15. 2020	Determine the influence of SMR on pain and running performance compared to the simulation of compression tights	8 runners (Age=31 ± 7 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR or placebo (compression tights)	30 min downhill run at 75% speed of 5 km run	– Total: 16 min SMR – 2 x 1 min muscle group in both legs – IM after run – Dense roller	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract	-IM after running (IM before RP) and 48 h after RP	< PS active SMR pre to post compared compression tights No significant difference RPE, CK and time on 3km counter
DA SILVA; et al. et al.,²⁸28 da Silva PRN, Monteiro ER, Peixoto CG, de Carvalho ABM, Monteiro TMG, de Figueiredo TC. Acute Effects of Inter-Set Rest Period Foam Rolling on Repetition Performance in Strength Training. J. Exerc. Physiol. Online. 2019;22(3). 2019	To investigate the effect of SMR during rest between sets on rep number	10 men trained in resistance training (Age: 27.3 ± 5.1 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR e PR	2 x 70% of a 1 RM to concentric failure	– Total: 60 s SMR – Between knee extension sets – Inner hard core EVA roller – Pressure BW	-Quadriceps	-IM after RP	No significant difference in the number of repetitions between PR and SMR group
ÖZSU et al.,²⁹29 Özsu İ, Gurol B, Kurt C. Comparison of the Effect of Passive and Active Recovery, and Self-Myofascial Release Exercises on Lactate Removal and Total Quality of Recovery. J Educ Train Stud. 2018;6(9a):33-42. 2018	Compare the effects of PR, AR and SMR on the removal of lactate and SPR 22 well-trained team sports athletes	22 well-trained team sports athletes (Age= 22.6 ± 2.9 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR, PR e AR	Wingate anaerobic test	– Total:15 min SMR – 3 x 30 s, 10-30 s rest on both legs. – IM after FP – Trigger point roller – Max BW pressure	– Hamstrings – Quadriceps – Hip – Iliotibial tract – Gastrocnemius – Anterior tibial	-IM after RP	> SPR SMR compared to PR and AR < RPE SMR compared to PR and AR > lactate removal SMR and AR compared to PR No significant difference in anaerobic power
GIOVANELLI et al.,³⁰30 Giovanelli N, Vaccari F, Floreani M, Rejc E, Copetti J, Garra M, et al. Short-term effects of rolling massage on energy cost of running and power of the lower limbs. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(10):1337-43. 2018	Assessing the effects of SMR on the Running Economy	13 students practicing sports (Age= 26.3±5.3 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR or PR	10 min treadmill run	Total: 16 min SMR – 1 x 1 min each muscle group in both legs. – After the run protocol – Roll – Max BW pressure	– Plantar fascia – Gastrocnemius – Tibial anterior – Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Gluteus – FLT	-IM and 3 h after RP	No significant difference VJ and RPE
ZORKO et al.,³¹31 Zorko N, Škarabot J, Garcia-Ramos A, Štirn I. The acute effect of self-massage on the short-term recovery of muscle contractile function. Kinesiologia Slovenica. 2016;22(3):31. 2016	Provide data on the effects of SMR on the recovery of muscle contractile function	10 active university students (Age= 18 to 24 years old)	Contralateral lower limb as control	3 x 15 rep knee extension with 70% of 1 RM	– Total: 90 s SMR in the dominant leg. – After FP – Trigger point roller – Pressure BW	-Quadriceps	-IM after FP and IM after RP	No significant difference MVIC
MILLER et al.,³²32 Miller K, Costa PB, Coburn JW, Brown LE. The effects of foam rolling on maximal sprint performance and range of motion. JASC. 2019;27(01):15-26. 2019	Examine the effects of SMR on peak sprint performance and ROM in recreational athletes	22 physically active participants (11 men age = 22.16 years old and 11 women age = 21.7 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR or PR	Sprint protocol	– Total: 12 min SMR – 3 x 30 s, 10 s of rest each muscle group in both legs. – IM after sprint protocol – High density polyethylene roller – Max BW pressure	– Gastrocnemius – Quadriceps – Gluteus – Hamstrings	-IM after RP	↑ ankle, knee and hip ROM SMR compared to RP No significant difference speed
POŻAROWSZCZYK et al.,³³33 Pożarowszczyk B, Kisilewicz A, Kawczyński A. Effects of training and foam rolling on muscle properties in swimmers. SWIMMING VII. 2018:92-98. 2018	Understand the effectiveness of SMR on muscle stiffness, flexibility and tone in swimmers	12 adolescent swimmers (Age= 14 ± 2 years old)	Pre-Post test	Aerobic swim training with 4 km and 75 min duration	Total: 15 min SMR – 8 to 10 reps each muscle group. – IM after swimming training – Roll – Max BW pressure	– Back – Legs (posterior) – Neck	-IM after TP and IM after SMR	↑ Flex postural muscles, pre to after SMR

Author	Objective	Sample	Outline	Training Protocol	SMR Protocol	Muscle Group Treated	Evaluation of Variables	Outcome
D’AMICO et al.,³⁴34 D’Amico A, Gillis J, McCarthy K, Leftin J, Molloy M, Heim H, et al. Foam rolling and indices of autonomic recovery following exercise-induced muscle damage. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2020;15(3):429-40. 2020	Evaluate the influence of SMR on physical performance and autonomic function after EIMD	40 healthy adults (Age=19 to 38 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or CON	40 x 15 m Sprint	Total: 25 min SMR – 60 s each muscle group of each leg – IM, 24, 48, 72, 96 h after TP – High density roller – Pressure BW	– Quadriceps – Iliotibial tract – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius	-IM after RP	< PS SMR 24, 48, 72, 96 h after TP compared to CON
D’AMICO; GILLIS,⁶6 D’Amico AP, Gillis J. The influence of foam rolling on recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(9):2443-52. 2019	Examine the impact of SMR on recovery from EIMD	37 healthy participants (SMR age = 22.4 ± 2.0 years old and CON age = 23.2 ± 3.2 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or PR	40 Sprints de 15 m	– Total: 24 min SMR – 2 x 60 s each muscle group in both legs. – Pressure BW – IM, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 96 h after sprints – High density roller	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Maximum gluteus – Gastrocnemius	-IM after RP	> agility SMR compared to PR No significant difference ROM, VJ, PS
NADERI et al.,³⁵35 Naderi A, Rezvani MH, Degens H. Foam Rolling and Muscle and Joint Proprioception After Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage. J Athl Train. 2020;55(1):58-64. 2020	To examine the effects of SMR on muscle and joint proprioception after an intense exercise protocol	80 healthy and physically active students (Age= 22.8 ± 3.3 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or PR	4 x 25 reps maximal eccentric voluntary contractions 2 min rest between sets	– Total: 2 min SMR – Max BW pressure – 1 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h after TP – Polypropylene roller	-Quadriceps	-IM after RP	< PS SMR > pain threshold SMR > strength with 60° and 120° SMR 24 h after TP> pain threshold SMR > strength with 60° and 120° SMR 48 h after TP > força com 60° e 120° SMR 24 h após TP
MACDONALD et al.,¹1 MacDonald GZ, Button DC, Drinkwater EJ, Behm DG. Foam rolling as a recovery tool after an intense bout of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(1):131-42. 2014	Understand the effectiveness of SMR as a recovery tool after EIMD	20 active participants with experience in strength training (Age= 25.1 ± 3.6 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or PR	10 x 10 reps squat, 2 min rest between sets	– Total: 20 min SMR – 60 s in each muscle group. – Pressure BW – IM, 24 h, 48 h after TP – Roller	– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gluteus	-24 h after RP	< PS 24, 48 and 72 h after TP compared to PR Maintenance and ↑ height VJ SMR 24 and 48 h after TP compared to PR no significant difference strength maintenance and ↑ Hamstring ROM active 24 h, passive 72 h and passive quadriceps 48 h and 72 h SMR after TP compared to PR
DRINKWATER et al.,³⁶36 Drinkwater EJ, Latella C, Wilsmore C, Bird SP, Skein M. Foam Rolling as a Recovery Tool Following Eccentric Exercise: Potential Mechanisms Underpinning Changes in Jump Performance. Front. Physiol. 2019;10:768. 2019	Investigating the effects of acute SMR use after a single bout of eccentric exercise	11 healthy participants (Age= 24.0 ± 0.7 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR or PR	6 x 25 reps eccentric contraction in knee extension with 60 s rest between sets	– Total: 15 min SMR – 3 min right leg muscle group. – Max BW pressure – IM, 24, 48, 72 h after TP – Roller	Quadriceps – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gluteus – Hamstrings	-IM after RP	↑ height VJ SMR at 48 and 72 h after TP No significant difference ROM and MVIC > pain threshold SMR 48 h after TP
PEARCEY et al.,⁸8 Pearcey GE, Bradbury-Squires DJ, Kawamoto J-E, Drinkwater EJ, Behm DG, Button DC. Foam rolling for delayed-onset muscle soreness and recovery of dynamic performance measures. J Athl Train. 2015;50(1):5-13. 2015	Examine the effects of SMR as a recovery tool after an intense exercise protocol	8 healthy and physically active participants (men) (Age = 22.1 ± 2.5 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR or PR	Squat with 10 x 10 reps	– Total: 20 min SMR – 2 x 45 s muscle group, rest 15 s – Max BW pressure – IM, 24, 48 h after TP – PVC and Neoprene roller	– Quadriceps – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gluteus – Hamstrings	-24 h after RP	> pain threshold SMR after TP < increase sprint time 24 h and 72 h SMR after TP < jump distance decline 24 h and 72 h SMR after TP compared to PR > resistance 48 h SMR after TP No significant difference agility
AUNE et al.,³⁷37 Aune AA, Bishop C, Turner AN, Papadopoulos K, Budd S, Richardson M, et al. Acute and chronic effects of foam rolling vs eccentric exercise on ROM and force output of the plantar flexors. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(2):138-45. 2019	Compare the acute and chronic effects of eccentric training and SMR on ankle dorsiflexion	23 base football players (Age= 18 ± 1 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or eccentric training	Daily Football Training Sessions	– Total: 4 weeks SMR – 3 x 60 s, 30 s rest dominant leg – Max BW pressure – Before the daily football training sessions – Roll	-Gastrocnemius	– 30 min, 24 h after SMR – After 4 weeks using SMR	No significant difference in ROM and plantar flexion torque ↑ reactive force after 4 weeks of SMR
MONTEIRO et al.,³⁸38 Monteiro ER, Vigotsky A, Škarabot J, Brown AF, de Melo Fiuza AGF, Gomes TM, et al. Acute effects of different foam rolling volumes in the interset rest period on maximum repetition performance. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2017;36:57-62. 2017	Investigate how different SMR durations during rest periods between sets affect the number of reps	25 active women (Age= 27.8 ±3.6 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR 60 s, SMR90 s, SMR 120 s or PR	4 x knee extension (load 10 RM) until concentric failure, 4 min rest between sets	– 3 x 60 s (Total: 3 min SMR) – 3 x 90 s (Total: 4 min and 30 s SMR) – 3 x 120 s (Total: 6 min SMR) – On both legs together – Max BW pressure – Between the series – EVA roll (trigger point)	-Quadriceps	-IM after RP	< number of reps SMR120, SMR90 and SMR60 compared to PR > number of SMR60 and SMR90 reps compared to SMR120 No significant difference SMR60 and SMR90
MONTEIRO; NETO,³⁹39 Monteiro ER, Neto VGC. Effect of different foam rolling volumes on knee extension fatigue. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11(7):1076-81. 2016	To analyze the effect of different durations of SMR on fatigue of knee extensors	25 active women (age 27.7 ± 3.56 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR 60 s, SMR 90 s, SMR 120 s or PR	3 x knee extension (load 10 RM) until concentric failure, rest 4 min between sets	– 2 x 60 s (Total: 2 min SMR) – 2 x 90 s (Total: 3 min SMR) – 2 x 120 s (Total: 4 min SMR) – On both legs together – Max BW pressure – Between the series – EVA roller (trigger point)	-Quadriceps	-IM after RP	> fatigue resistance for CON than SMR90 and SMR120 > SMR60 fatigue strength than SMR120 > SMR90 fatigue strength than SMR120
ALIN; AZAB,⁴⁰40 Alin L, Azab M. Effects of Self Myofascial Release Using a Foam Roll on Range of Motion and Performance Level of Individual Routine in Rhythmic Gymnastics. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Ser. Phys. Educ Sport. Sci. Mov. Health. 2019;19(2 supplement):256-61. 2019	To investigate the effects of SMR on ROM and on the performance level of individual routine in rhythmic gymnastics for female students	20 female college students (Age CON= 20.36 ± 0.4 years old, SMR = 20.55 ± 0.3 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or without intervention	Individual rhythmic gymnastics training routine	– Total: 8 weeks SMR – 3 x week – 1 h – Roller	Unspecified	After 8 weeks using SMR	> Shoulder, Back and Knee ROM ↑ individual performance of SMR rhythmic gymnastics compared to CON
GUILLOT et al.,⁴¹41 Guillot A, Kerautret Y, Queyrel F, Schobb W, Di Rienzo F. Foam Rolling and Joint Distraction with Elastic Band Training Performed for 5-7 Weeks Respectively Improve Lower Limb Flexibility. J Sport Sci Med. 2019;18(1):160-71. 2019	Answer whether short and long SMR durations and elastic training improve ROM in rugby players	30 professional rugby players (Age = 18.85 ± 1.1 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR 40 s, SMR 20 s or PR and Controlled trial: SMR or elastic band training	Rugby Practice Routine	– Total: 6 weeks SMR (15 sessions) – On both legs. – SMR 40= 40 s muscle group – SMR 20= 20 s muscle group – Pressure BW – High dens roller	– Gluteus – Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gastrocnemius	-After 6 weeks using SMR	> ADM opening SMR20 and SMR40 compared to PR > ROM in hip flexion and extension SMR20 and SMR40 compared to PR No significant difference SMR20 and SMR40 No significant difference between knee and ankle ROM > Hamstring and Adductors ROM Elastic Training
MONTEIRO et al.,⁴²42 Monteiro ER, Škarabot J, Vigotsky AD, Brown AF, Gomes TM, da Silva Novaes J. Maximum Repetition Performance After Different Antagonist Foam Rolling Volumes In The Inter‐Set Rest Period. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12(1):76-84. 2017	To investigate the effects of different SMR durations on the hamstrings during the rest period between sets	25 active women (Age= 27.8 ± 3.6 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR 60 s, SMR 120 s or PR	3 x knee extension (10 RM load) to concentric failure, 4 min rest between sets	3 x knee extension (load 10 RM) until concentric failure. 4 min rest between sets – 2 x 60s (Total: 2 min SMR) – 2 x 120s (Total: 4 min SMR) – On both legs together. – Pressure BW – Between sets – EVA roll (Trigger Point)	-Hamstrings	-IM after RP	> number of reps PR compared to SMR60 and SMR120 > number of reps SMR60 compared to SMR120
MONTEIRO et al.,⁴³43 Monteiro ER, Costa PB, Neto VGC, Hoogenboom BJ, Steele J, da Silva Novaes J. Posterior thigh foam rolling increases knee extension fatigue and passive shoulder range-of-motion. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(4):987-94. 2019	Analyze the acute effects of different durations on fatigue of knee extensors	12 active women (Age= 27.58 ± 3.23 years old)	Crossover trial: SMR 60 s, SMR 120 s or PR	3 x maximum knee extension (load 10 RM) until concentric failure, rest 5 min between sets	– 2 x 60 s (Total: 2 min SMR) – 2 x 120 s (Total: 4 min SMR) – In the dominant leg – Pressure BW – Between series – EVA (Trigger Point) Roller	-Hamstrings	-IM after RP	> fatigue strength PR compared to SMR60 and SMR120 No significant difference SMR60 and SMR120
STOVERN et al.,⁴⁴44 Stovern O, Henning C, Porcari JP, Doberstein S, Emineth K, Arney BE, et al. The Effect of Training with a Foam Roller on Ankle and Knee Range of Motion, Hamstring Flexibility, Agility, and Vertical Jump Height. Int J Res Ex Phys. 2019;15(1):39-49. 2019	Evaluate the effects of SMR training on ROM, flexibility, agility and height VJ	34 active participants (Age= 20.8 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR ou without intervention	Recreational training routine	– Total: 6 weeks SMR (18 sessions, 3 sessions per week) – 15 min – Session 3 x 20 s each muscle group. – Pressure BW – EVA Roller (Trigger Point)	– Lower back – Gluteus – Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Gastrocnemius – Iliotibial tract	-After 6 weeks using SMR	> ankle ROM SMR and CON Pre to post, no difference between groups. No significant difference knee ROM, agility and VJ ↑ Flex SMR compared to CON, Pre to post-test SMR More flexible and feel that could jump higher than CON
JUNKER; STÖGGL,⁴⁵45 Junker D, Stöggl T. The training effects of foam rolling on core strength endurance, balance, muscle performance and range of motion: a randomized controlled trial. J Sport Sci Med. 2019;18(2):229-38. 2019	To examine the effect of an 8-week SMR intervention	40 active participants (SMR Age= 30.5 ± 10.2 years old, CORE= 28.2 ± 7.8 years old, CON= 29.1 ± 6.9 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or CORE or without intervention	Routine of sports activities	– Total: 8 weeks SMR (2 sessions per week) – 27 to 30 min per week – 3 x 30 to 50 s – Pressure BW – Roller	– Gastrocnemius – Hamstrings – Quadriceps – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract	After 8 weeks using SMR	↑ CORE dorsal resistance compared to SMR and CON No significant difference jump ↑ Flex SMR compared to CON No significant difference between SMR and CORE
RAHIMI et al.,⁴⁶46 Rahimi A, Amani-Shalamzari S, Clemente FM. The effects of foam roll on perceptual and performance recovery during a futsal tournament. Physiol Behav. 2020;223:112981. 2020	To investigate the effectiveness of SMR recovery of futsal players in a simulated futsal tournament	16 young futsal players (Age= 19 ± 1.2 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR or PR	Futsal matches	– Total: 15 min SMR – 3 x 40 s, 20 s rest on each muscle group. – on both legs – Pressure BW – 5 min after futsal match (3 matches) – Non-smooth PVC roll and neoprene	– Gastrocnemius – Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Gluteus	-24 h after RP	No significant difference repeated sprint, agility, Yo-yo test and VJ SMR compared to PR > sensation recovery SMR second and third game < lactate 15 and 30 min SMR after third match
JUNKER; STÖGGL,⁴⁷47 Junker DH, Stöggl TL. The foam roll as a tool to improve hamstring flexibility. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(12):3480-5. 2015	Determine the effect of a 4-week SMR training period on hamstring flexibility	40 active participants (SMR age = 31.0 ± 8.5 years old, PNF = 33.0 ± 10.5 years, CON = 30.0 ± 9.0 years old)	Controlled trial: SMR, Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation or without intervention	Routine of sports activities	– Total: 4 weeks SMR (3 sessions per week) – 3 x 30 to 40 s – on both legs – Pressure BW – Roll	-Hamstrings	-After 4 weeks using SMR	↑ Flex SMR and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation than CON, Pre to post No significant difference in SMR and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation

Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte Av. Brigadeiro Luís Antônio, 278, 6º and., 01318-901 São Paulo SP, Tel.: +55 11 3106-7544, Fax: +55 11 3106-8611 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: atharbme@uol.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Raphael Ferreira de Oliveira, Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, Departamento de Ciências do Esporte Av Sândalo, 319 Jaraguá, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil. raphinha_fdo@hotmail.com