A critical evaluation of the current status of myofascial chains


Introduction

From a morphological point of view, most anatomy textbooks have described the skeletal muscles of the human body as being discrete actuators with clear origins and insertions ( ). Recent analyses of published anatomical cadaveric studies have challenged this assumption, revealing that the active components of the locomotor system are directly linked by fibrous connective tissue ( ) ( Fig. 1.6.1 ). The bridging structures include: ligaments (hamstrings – sacrotuberous ligament – erector spinae muscle) ( , ); fasciae 1

1 In this Commentary, the term fascia refers to the connective tissue investing the skeletal muscles, sometimes also called ‘deep fascia’.

(gastrocnemius muscle – hamstrings) ( ); aponeuroses (gluteus maximus/tensor fasciae latae – iliotibial tract – calf muscles) ( ); tendons (gastrocnemius muscle – Achilles tendon – plantar aponeurosis – toe abductors) ( , ).

Fig. 1.6.1, The myofascial continuities of pectoralis major, which is connected to the brachial fascia (left) and the rectus abdominis sheath (right). Note that in contrast to sharply dissected muscles, no clear insertions and origins of the connective tissue can be identified.

A common feature of the listed elements is their considerable tensile strength, conferred by a large quantity of collagen type I fibres. Moreover, comparisons between samples of the fascia lata and different tendons located around the knee joint revealed that these structures share similar biomechanical, biochemical and histological properties ( , ). Therefore, in addition to the classical distinctive terminology, it has been suggested that the entirety of soft collagenous connective tissues should be grouped under the umbrella terms ‘fascial tissues/fascial system’ when describing the body from a holistic and functional point of view ( ).

Myofascial Chains

Concepts of myofascial chains assume that the connectivity of muscles and stretch-resistant soft tissue creates systemic lines of pull with the potential to transmit mechanical force to distant body regions. The selection of the components of a myofascial chain is based on the criterion of continuity between their longitudinal axes ( Fig. 1.6.2 ): it is assumed that this construction maximizes the amount of transmittable force. Another relevant factor is the common fibre orientation of neighbouring myofascial chain components. In tendons, the collagen fibrils are oriented parallel to each other, almost directly following the muscle’s line of pull. A similar architecture with mostly parallel fibres running in a longitudinal direction can be found in ligaments. Although the investing fasciae often display a bidirectional, lattice-like fibre arrangement, biomechanical studies reveal a markedly higher longitudinal stiffness ( ), which might indicate a more pronounced strain transmission capacity in this direction.

Fig. 1.6.2, A schematic drawing illustrating the selection of myofascial chain components. Although muscle 1 is connected to two other muscles (in this case through the overlying investing fasciae), the transition to muscle 2 would be preferred due to the common fibre course and the linear continuation of the longitudinal axes (grey dotted lines). Note that in this idealized model, similar tensional stiffness is assumed in all three components. If muscle 2 and its overlying connective tissue were in a slack position, force transmission could be superior between muscles 1 and 3.

Based on these thoughts, a variety of concepts have suggested body maps with hypothesized myofascial chains ( Fig. 1.6.3 ) (for an overview, see ). Only three continuous lines, the posterior longitudinal chain, the posterior diagonal chain and the anterior diagonal chain, have been systematically verified so far ( Fig. 1.6.4A , Table 1.6.1 ) ( ). Two other possible chains, the lateral longitudinal chain and the spiral chain, still exhibit some unresolved inconsistencies but are at least partially backed by scientific evidence ( Fig. 1.6.4B , Table 1.6.2 ).

Fig. 1.6.3, Different courses and components of myofascial chains have been proposed. This figure shows two possible versions of a spiral chain wrapping around the body. A , Myers (1997). B , Dart (1950), did not include the lower leg muscles.

Fig. 1.6.4, A , The posterior longitudinal (left), posterior diagonal (middle) and anterior diagonal (right) myofascial chains. B , The hypothesized but not yet completely evidence-based lateral longitudinal (left) and spiral (right) chains of Myers (1997). Green represents verified, yellow doubtful, and red not verified, continuities.

TABLE 1.6.1
Components and possible functions of the three verified myofascial chains. Muscular parts include the respective investing fasciae
Myofascial chain Soft tissue components Assumed function Remarks
Posterior longitudinal chain Plantar aponeurosis
Achilles tendon
Gastrocnemius
‘Hamstring’ muscles
Sacrotuberous ligament
Lumbar fascia/erector spinae
Resistance to gravity, control and support of posture in the sagittal plane (e.g. upright and slumped spine), initiation and stabilization of linear vertical movements (e.g. jumps) Continuity of plantar aponeurosis and Achilles tendon decreases with age
Posterior diagonal chain Vastus lateralis
Gluteus maximus
Lumbar fascia
Contralateral latissimus dorsi
Brachial fascia
Connection of both body sides, interaction between upper and lower extremity, initiation and control of cross-sided movements (e.g. throwing) In contrast to pectoralis major, the brachial fascia does not adhere strongly to the underlying muscles. This might reduce force transfer, e.g. to biceps brachii
Anterior diagonal chain Adductor longus
Rectus abdominis
Pectoralis major
Brachial fascia
Connection of both body sides, interaction between upper and lower extremity, initiation and control of cross-sided movements (e.g. throwing) In contrast to latissimus dorsi, the brachial fascia does not adhere strongly to the underlying muscles. This might reduce force transfer, e.g. to triceps brachii

TABLE 1.6.2
Hypothetical components and possible functions of two not yet entirely evidence-based myofascial chains (based on the proposal of , ). Muscular parts include the respective investing fasciae. Unverified continuities are indicated in bold font
Myofascial chain Soft tissue components Assumed function
Lateral longitudinal chain Fibularis longus/brevis/crural fascia – iliotibial tract/gluteus maximus/tensor fasciae latae
Iliotibial tract/gluteus maximus/tensor fasciae latae – external/internal abdominal oblique
External/internal abdominal oblique – intercostal muscles
Intercostal muscles – splenius capitis/sternocleidomastoid
Stabilization and control of ankle, knee, hip and spine in the frontal plane (e.g. knee alignment/valgus/varus)
Spiral chain Erector spinae – sacrotuberous ligament/biceps femoris
Biceps femoris – fibularis longus
Fibularis longus – tibialis anterior
Tibialis anterior – iliotibial tract/tensor fasciae latae
Tensor fasciae latae – internal abdominal oblique
Internal – external abdominal oblique
External abdominal oblique – serratus anterior
Serratus anterior – rhomboid minor/major
Rhomboid minor/major – splenius capitis/cervicis
Production and control of rotational forces (e.g. torsion of the spine or throwing in sports), stabilization and control of ankle, knee, hip and spine in the frontal plane (e.g. knee alignment/valgus/varus)

Limitations and perspectives

Myofascial continuity is not restricted to in-series coupling as at first glance might be implied by chain concepts. Direct morphological linkages have also been clearly documented between muscles lying parallel to each other, e.g. synergists or antagonists ( ). Myofascial continuity therefore represents a global feature of body architecture, rather than a distinct hallmark of serially arranged skeletal muscles. The factors determining and influencing the amount of structural continuity are a matter of debate. While the plantar aponeurosis – also called plantar fascia or plantar ligament by other authors – fuses strongly with the Achilles tendon in young individuals, no (or only a few) bridging fibres can be detected in older persons ( , ). Besides age, physical activity and gender represent other potential predictors of the degree of myofascial force transmission, but as yet have not been investigated.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here