So what do you thing about ART?

Occasionally, I get questions about  the effectiveness of Active Release Techinques (ART) or what it is, so I thought I would look into this form of treatment to understand it a little better.  I spent some time researching ART on various websites including the ART provider’s information and the ART website.  

The basic idea is that a series of hands on techniques based on massage are used to diagnose and treat pain from muscle and soft tissue tightness. 

From activerelease.com:

“The basic premise is simple, just not easy. Shorten the tissue, apply a contact tension and lengthen the tissue or make it slide relative to the adjacent tissue.  It’s as simple as playing a piano and just as difficult.”

 This treatment idea is similar to “anchor and stretch” or “pin and stretch” techniques commonly used in massage.  This is a more detailed explanation on Aetna’s website under the Experimental and Investigational Interventions section:

 “Active release technique is a patented soft tissue system that treats problems with muscles, tendons, ligaments, fascia and nerves (e.g., headaches, back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, shin splints, shoulder pain, sciatica, plantar fasciitis, knee problems, and tennis elbow).  These conditions have one important commonality — they often result from injury to over-used muscles.  Each ART session is a combination of examination and treatment.  The ART provider uses his/her hands to evaluate the texture, tightness and movement of muscles, fascia, tendons, ligaments and nerves.  Abnormal tissues are treated by combining precisely directed tension with very specific patient movements.  These treatment protocols – over 500 specific moves – are unique to ART.  They supposedly allow providers to identify and correct the specific problems that are affecting each individual patient.  Active release technique is similar to some massage techniques, albeit more aggressive.” (1)

 The mention of hands on treatment to break up adhesions to restore optimal texture, motion, and function of soft tissue is prevalent in all of the information that I found.  One of the main differences compared to massage/stretching is that a contact point is maintained with the hands while the patient actively moves his/her body to provide longitudinal movement of nerves, ligaments, fascia, and muscles to assist the treatment.

 The list of conditions/injuries that ART can help is too long to list, but it seems to be the majority of issues neuromuscloskeletal.   According to the websites I found, it is more successful, effective, and cost effective than conventional therapies.  The results are mentioned to be more predictable, but no clarification on how they are more predictable.  Although it is not stated outright, it is suggested that you can resume normal physical activity faster after ART. So is this the panacea of treatments?

All of the information I found stated only ART credentialed providers can tell you if ART will work for you.  If ART was based on sound scientific principles why couldn’t anyone with an appropriate anatomical education be able to determine if ART would work?  The active release technique website (an ART provider)  says that their treatments are very different from other soft tissue, bodywork, massage, or other therapy. I think it is interesting that they just left the last option as other therapy.  Are there no ‘other therapies’ that could be slightly similar to ART?

 If you go to activerelease.com the first thing you notice is their logo and then a banner that reads “The Gold Standard of Soft Tissue Treatment.”  Unfortunately, they don’t have anything to support this claim.  A search of PubMed finds several studies on ART, but they are case studies using multiple techniques including ART, and small pilot studies with varying results.  Despite the lack of proof of it’s effectiveness there are thousands of ART providers and there are no shortage of testimonials across the web as to it’s effectiveness.  But just because there is a lack of proof of it’s effectiveness doesn’t mean it does not work.  Based on descriptions of the techniques and YouTube videos, massage therapists and PT’s have been using similar techniques with good results for years.

Based on the information I found it seems like ART is just clever marketing of new techniques to do what we already are doing (or at least should be doing).  These techniques may be more effective, but the problem is that nobody has properly researched the techniques to see if they are more or less effective.  So what is your opinion? Is this just clever marketing or truly a different set of skills we should have for our patients?

1) Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletin Chiropractic Services. http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/100_199/0107.html .  Accessed 10/5/11.

  • Share/Bookmark

Facebook comments:

Comments

Well said.
I actually had a PT student observe me today where the concept of ART was brought up by her. She had previously done an out-patient clinical rotation where her CI was heavy on ART. She was very much an advocate for its use. So, I asked her about the evidence for it. She did not have anything to offer, so we did a pubmed search and found very little (as you mentioned above). I have no issues that this may be an effective treatment technique for certain patients, but when PT’s (and PT students) fail to recognize limited evidence for it but promote it as the ‘cure all’, it leaves me a little discouraged as to where our profession (and education of future students) is going.

posted by Wiggam on 11.02.11 at 6:09 pm

I’m intruigued but wary about ART. The thing that really throws me is the cost of their seminars – about $2,000 each! I don’t know about anyone else, but my budget for cont. ed. (employers plus my personal budget) is nowhere near that much. And for something not backed up by research, and that you can’t bill for (unless you’re a cash practice)? It’s just not worth it to me.

posted by L. Sharkey on 01.20.12 at 11:17 am

There seems to be a lot of skepticism in the PT field regarding ART, and although you didn’t mention in in your article also regarding Instrument assisted STM. I am a PT and know several practitioners who use ART quite heavily in their practice, and have been treated by the majority of them. I can honestly say that I 100% believe ART is more effective than most soft tissue treatment techniques for reducing adhesion and improving ROM. Like any treatment you have to match it well to your patient, and for a lot of older pt’s it may not be the best approach. I really wish there was more research on ART, so for any researchers out there…

posted by Tom on 04.01.12 at 4:48 pm

Leave a comment