Is it the End of the Ice Age?

The use of the RICE (Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation) protocol has been the preferred method of treatment for acute musculoskeletal injuries for decades. However, the efficacy of using ice as a recovery strategy following injury in humans remains uncertain, and there is a growing trend recommending against icing following injury. Animal models suggest that while ice can help to accelerate the recovery process, extreme muscle cooling might delay repair and increase muscle scarring. Despite the conflicting evidence, ice should not be dismissed as a potential treatment option. When considering what is known about the injury cascade, the optimal application window for ice is in the immediate acute stage following injury to reduce the proliferation of secondary tissue damage that occurs in the hours after the initial injury. Practitioners should tailor the application of ice based on the injury timeline and repair process, consistent with applications in 20-30 minute intervals within the first 12 hours post-injury. Until the evidence unanimously proves otherwise, the culture of icing injuries should remain a staple in sports medicine

Prolonging the duration of cooling does not enhance recovery following a marathon

Runners commonly utilize cryotherapy as part of their recovery strategy. Cryotherapy has been ineffective in mitigating signs and symptoms of muscle damage following marathon running and is limited by its duration of application. Phase change material (PCM) packs can prolong the duration of cooling. This study aimed to test the efficacy of prolonging the duration of cooling using PCM on perceptual recovery, neuromuscular function, and blood markers following a marathon run. Thirty participants completed a marathon run and were randomized to receive three hours of 15°C PCM treatment covering the quadriceps or recover without an intervention (control). Quadriceps soreness, strength, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, creatine kinase (CK), and high sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hsCRP) were recorded at baseline, 24, 48, and 72 hours after the marathon. Following the marathon, strength decreased in both groups (P < .0001), with no difference between groups. Compared to baseline, strength was reduced 24 (P = .004) and 48 hours after the marathon (P = .008) in the control group, but only 24 hours (P = .028) in the PCM group. Soreness increased (P < .0001) and CMJ height decreased (P < .0001) in both groups, with no difference between groups. Compared to baseline, CMJ height was not reduced on any days in the PCM group but was reduced in the control group 24 (P < .0001) and 48 hours (P = .003) after the marathon. CK and hsCRP increased in both groups (P < .0001). Although the marathon run induced significant muscle damage, prolonging the duration of cooling using PCM did not accelerate the resolution of any dependent variable

The effect of varying degrees of compression from elastic vs plastic wrap on quadriceps intramuscular temperature during wetted ice application

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of wetted ice bag, applied with high compression elastic wrap or held in place with low compression plastic wrap, on reducing vastus lateralis intramuscular temperature and skin surface temperature. Ten healthy male participants had wetted ice packs applied to a standardized area on the anterior aspect of the quadriceps simultaneously to both legs for 30 minutes. The ice pack was secured with high compression (elastic wrap) to the left anterior thigh (60.6 ± 8.1 mm Hg) and low compression (plastic wrap) to the right anterior thigh (15.5 ± 4.0 mm Hg). Intramuscular temperature (1 and 3 cm) and skin temperature of the vastus lateralis were measured continuously during a 10‐minute baseline period, 30‐minute treatment period, and a 60‐minute recovery period. No difference was observed between treatments in terms of the magnitude of reduction in intramuscular temperature at both 1 cm and 3 cm and skin temperature regardless of compression pressure (P > .05). Temperature upon conclusion of elastic wrap treatment was: 17.8 ± 5.2°C at 1 cm, 23.1 ± 4.9°C at 3 cm; plastic wrap treatment: 17.9 ± 4.4°C at 1 cm, 24.5 ± 6.7°C at 3 cm. Plastic wraps may offer a practical alternative to elastic wraps for clinicians as they may be disposed of by the patient or athlete without having to stay at the treatment facility