Author(s): HITIER, M., DURIGAN, J.L.Q., BABAULT, N., Institution: UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE, Country: FRANCE, Abstract-ID: 1163

INTRODUCTION:
Dynamic stretching is widely used in warm-up routines for athletes. It improves performance and range of motion (1). Neurodynamic stretching, which uses the sliding of nerve tissue relative to the adjacent tissue, has also been shown to immediately affect the range of motion without altering maximal force production (2). Both techniques use active movements and have similar biomechanical characteristics. However, the effects of these modalities on the mechanical properties of the neuromuscular system in healthy athletes are poorly documented (3). The aim of this study was therefore to compare the acute effects of dynamic and neurodynamic stretching on the mechanical properties of the hamstring muscles and sciatic nerve, as measured by shear wave elastography, and on muscle strength.
METHODS:
16 physically active volunteers (6 women and 10 men) were included in this cross-over randomized study. Each experimental session consisted of one of the three randomized conditions: dynamic stretching (DY), neurodynamic flossing stretching (ND), or a no-stretch control (CON). Stretching (either DY or ND) was conducted on hamstring muscles and consisted of 5 series of 60 seconds at 0.5 Hz. Tests were performed before and after each condition (Pre and Post). Tests included shear wave velocity (SWV) on the biceps femoris and sciatic nerve tissue, maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) of the hamstrings and mobility tests (slump, stand-and-reach (SR), passive and active knee extension (PKE and AKE)). A two-way analysis of variance was used to compare the effects of the conditions (dynamic vs neurodynamic vs control) and time (Pre vs Post).
RESULTS:
Sciatic nerve stiffness measured by shear wave elastography decreased over time (p < 0.001) with a significant condition × time interaction (p = 0.030), showing greater reduction after ND compared with CON. Muscle stiffness decreased across all conditions (p < 0.001). There was no significant condition × time interaction (p = 0.150). Range of motion improved for all mobility tests: SLUMP test (p = 0.002), SR (p < 0.001), PKE (p < 0.001) and AKE (p < 0.001), with greater post-intervention gains for DY and ND versus CON for PKE (p ≤ 0.005) and AKE (p ≤ 0.005). Quadriceps strength increased after intervention (p = 0.009), whereas hamstring strength was unchanged (p = 0.719).
CONCLUSION:
Dynamic and neurodynamic stretching reduce muscular tissue stiffness, enhance mobility and increase antagonist muscle strength, likely reflecting a comparable warm-up effect. Additionally, neurodynamic stretching reduces sciatic nerve stiffness, suggesting specific neural mechanical benefits. These findings suggest that neurodynamic stretching is an effective alternative to dynamic stretching for warming up.

REFERENCES:
(1) Opplert J, Babault N. Sport Med, 2018, 48:299–325.
(2) Hitier M, Vieira DCL, Cometti C, Durigan JLQ, Babault N. Plos one, 2025, 7;20(5):e0322582.
(3) Vieira D, Opplert J, Babault N. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2021, 121:957–967.