Comparative Effects of Active and Passive Recovery Strategies on Pain, Functional Mobility, and Rehabilitation Duration in Athletes with Lower Limb Injuries: A Randomized Controlled Study

Abstract

Background: Recovery strategies play a pivotal role in optimizing rehabilitation outcomes following sports-related injuries. While both active and passive recovery modalities are widely implemented in clinical and athletic settings, comparative evidence regarding their relative efficacy in structured rehabilitation programs remains limited and methodologically inconsistent. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of active and passive recovery interventions on pain reduction, functional mobility, and rehabilitation duration among athletes with lower limb injuries.Methods: A randomized controlled trial design was employed involving 120 competitive athletes diagnosed with non-surgical lower limb musculoskeletal injuries. Participants were randomly allocated to either an active recovery group (n = 60), which engaged in supervised low-intensity mobility and neuromuscular exercises, or a passive recovery group (n = 60), which received conventional rest-based recovery with adjunct modalities (massage and cryotherapy). Interventions were administered over a 12-week rehabilitation period. Outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain intensity and the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) for mobility assessment, recorded at baseline and post-intervention. Between-group differences were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for baseline scores, with effect sizes calculated using partial eta squared (η²). Results: After adjusting for baseline values, the active recovery group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in pain reduction and functional mobility compared to the passive recovery group (p < .001). The magnitude of improvement was large for both pain (η² > .14) and mobility outcomes (η² > .14), indicating clinically meaningful benefits. Furthermore, participants in the active recovery condition exhibited a shorter average rehabilitation duration and earlier functional return to sport-related activity. Conclusion: Structured active recovery interventions produce superior rehabilitative outcomes compared with passive recovery approaches in athletes with lower limb injuries. These findings support the integration of controlled, progressive movement strategies into standard rehabilitation protocols to enhance functional restoration and expedite recovery. Future research should explore injury-specific applications and long-term performance outcomes to further refine evidence-based rehabilitation models.