The study aimed to assess the effects of compression trigger point therapy on the stiffness of the trapezius muscle in professional basketball players (Part A), and the reliability of the MyotonPRO device in clinical evaluation of athletes (Part B). Twelve professional basketball players participated in Part A of the study (mean age: 19.8 ± 2.4 years, body height 197 ± 8.2 cm, body mass: 91.8 ± 11.8 kg), with unilateral neck or shoulder pain at the dominant side. Part B tested twelve right-handed male athletes (mean ± SD; age: 20.4 ± 1.2 years; body height: 178.6 ± 7.7 cm; body mass: 73.2 ± 12.6 kg). Stiffness measurements were obtained directly before and after a single session trigger point compression therapy. Measurements were performed bilaterally over 5 points covering the trapezius muscle. The effects were evaluated using a full-factorial repeated measure ANOVA and the Bonferroni post-hoc test for equal variance. A p-value < .05 was considered significant. The RM ANOVA revealed a significant decrease in muscle stiffness for the upper trapezius muscle. Specifically, muscle stiffness decreased from 243.7 ± 30.5 to 215.0 ± 48.5 N/m (11.8%), (p = .008) (Part A). The test-retest relative reliability of trapezius muscle stiffness was found to be high (ICC from 0.821 to 0.913 for measurement points). The average SEM was 23.59 N/m and the MDC 65.34 N/m, respectively (Part B). The present study showed that a single session of compression trigger point therapy can be used to significantly decrease the stiffness of the upper trapezius among professional basketball players.

Objective: This study assessed the effects of active recovery training, cold-water immersion, contrast-water immersion, and no intervention on pain pressure thresholds in the quadriceps, triceps, and full leg. Following these recovery strategies, it also examined the relationships between creatine kinase, myoglobin, and pain pressure thresholds. Methods: Twenty basketball players from the Śląsk Wrocław team, aged 18 to 35, participated in a randomized controlled trial. They were divided into four groups: active recovery training, cold-water immersion, contrast-water immersion, and control. The interventions were applied post-match, and pain pressure thresholds were measured in the quadriceps, triceps, and full leg using a Somedic Algometer type 2. Blood samples were collected for analysis of creatine kinase and myoglobin levels. Results: Active recovery training significantly improved pain pressure thresholds across all muscle groups compared to cold-water immersion, contrast-water immersion, and control (p=0.001, d = 0.87 to 6.12). Cold-water immersion showed significant benefits in the triceps and full leg muscles compared to contrast-water immersion and control (p=0.001, d = -2.90 to 5.56). Contrast-water immersion did not differ significantly from the control in any muscle group. No significant correlations were found between pain pressure thresholds and creatine kinase and myoglobin levels. Conclusion: Active recovery training was the most effective strategy for improving pain pressure thresholds in basketball players, with cold-water immersion offering additional benefits for specific muscle groups. The lack of correlation between pain pressure thresholds and muscle damage biomarkers suggests that pain pressure thresholds alone may not be a reliable indicator of muscle damage.

Study aim: This study evaluated the effects of active recovery (AR), cold-water immersion (CWI), contrast-water therapy (CWT), and a no-recovery control (CWR) on creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin (Mb), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT) in national-level basketball players across three time points: immediately post-match, 24 h, and 48 h post-match. Materials and methods: Twenty professional players participated in a randomized crossover trial in which each underwent all four conditions. A single intervention was applied post-match, with CK and Mb levels assessed at each time point, and PPT measured on the quadriceps and triceps surae. Results: All conditions showed peak CK and Mb levels at 24 h post-match, followed by a decline at 48 h. Significant time effects were observed ( p < 0.001), with condition × time interactions for all variables ( η ² = 0.26–0.94). Unexpectedly, the CWR condition had the lowest CK and Mb concentrations and highest PPT values at 48 h, indicating better biochemical and nociceptive recovery. CWI resulted in significantly lower PPT compared to AR, CWT, and CWR ( p < 0.001). After accounting for baseline differences using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), condition effects remained significant at both 24 h and 48 h post-match (all p < 0.01, η ² _p = 0.15–0.91). Conclusion: While AR, CWI, and CWT affected muscle damage and pain sensitivity, CWR led to the most favorable outcomes, suggesting that a single recovery intervention may not outperform rest. Notably, CWI was less effective for pain sensitivity despite moderating biomarkers.