Hand grip strength and fatigability: correlation with clinical parameters and diagnostic suitability in ME/CFS.

BACKGROUND: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex and debilitating disease accompanied by muscular fatigue and pain. A functional measure to assess muscle fatigability of ME/CFS patients is, however, not established in clinical routine. The aim of this study is to evaluate by assessing repeat maximum handgrip strength (HGS), muscle fatigability as a diagnostic tool and its correlation with clinical parameters. METHODS: We assessed the HGS of 105 patients with ME/CFS, 18 patients with Cancer related fatigue (CRF) and 66 healthy controls (HC) using an electric dynamometer assessing maximal (Fmax) and mean force (Fmean) of ten repetitive measurements. Results were correlated with clinical parameters, creatinine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Further, maximum isometric quadriceps strength measurement was conducted in eight ME/CFS patients and eight HC. RESULTS: ME/CFS patients have a significantly lower Fmax and Fmean HGS compared to HC (p < 0.0001). Further, Fatigue Ratio assessing decline in strength during repeat maximal HGS measurement (Fmax/Fmean) was higher (p ≤ 0.0012). The Recovery Ratio after an identical second testing 60 min later was significantly lower in ME/CFS compared to HC (Fmean2/Fmean1; p ≤ 0.0020). Lower HGS parameters correlated with severity of disease, post-exertional malaise and muscle pain and with higher CK and LDH levels after exertion. CONCLUSION: Repeat HGS assessment is a sensitive diagnostic test to assess muscular fatigue and fatigability and an objective measure to assess disease severity in ME/CFS.

Cold-water or partial-body cryotherapy? Comparison of physiological responses and recovery following muscle damage.

The aim of this study is to compare (a) the physiological responses following cold-water immersion (CWI) and partial-body cryotherapy (PBC) and (b) the effects on recovery following a muscle-damaging protocol (5 × 20 drop jumps). Nineteen healthy males were randomly allocated into either a CWI (10°C for 10 minutes; n = 9) or a PBC (-60°C for 30 seconds, -135°C for 2 minutes; n = 10) group. The physiological variables (thigh muscle oxygen saturation [SmO2 ], cutaneous vascular conductance [CVC], mean arterial pressure [MAP], and local skin temperature) were assessed immediately prior and up to 60 minutes post-treatment (10-minutes intervals). The recovery variables (thigh muscle swelling, maximum voluntary contraction [MVC] of the right knee extensors, vertical jump performance [VJP], and delayed onset of muscle soreness [DOMS]) were measured immediately prior and up to 72 hours post-treatment (24-hours intervals). Compared to PBC values, CVC (at 30 minutes), SmO2 (at 40 minutes), and lower extremity skin temperature (thigh/shin at 60 minutes) were significantly reduced in the CWI group after the treatment (all P < .05). Only lower extremity skin temperature was significantly reduced in the PBC group directly post-treatment (all P < .05). MAP significantly increased in both groups after the treatments (both P < .05). DOMS did not differ between groups. MVC and VJP returned to baseline in both groups after 24 hours (P > .05). CWI had a greater impact on the physiological response compared to PBC. However, both treatments resulted in similar recovery profiles during a 72-hours follow-up period.

Evaluation of strength muscle recovery with isokinetic, squat jump and stiffness tests in athletes with ACL reconstruction: a case control study.

BackgroundThe anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture accounting for about 50% of all knee ligament injuries. The rehabilitation program requires a long time to rebuild muscle strength and to reestablish joint mobility and neuromuscular control. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the muscle strength recovery in athletes with ACL reconstruction. MethodsWe enrolled soccer atlethes, with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture treated with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft artroscopic reconstruction. Each patients were evaluated comparing operated and controlateral limb by isokinetic test and triaxial accelerometer test. Isokinetic movements tested were knee flexion-extension with concentric-concentric contraction. Accelerometer test were Squat Jump Test (SJT)  and Stiffness Test (ST). Results17 subjects were selected, there was no significant difference in isokinetic quadriceps and hamstrings results in strength and endurance values. Parameters of ST were comparable between the operated and unoperated side. In SJT a significant statistical difference was in height of jump (p=0,02) no statistical difference was evidenced in the other measures.ConclusionCurrently complete recovery of symmetric explosive strength seems to be an important parameter for evaluating the performance after ACL reconstruction and the symmetry in test results jump could be associated with an adequate return to sports. In our study the explosive strenght is lower in the limb operated than the healthy one. Explosive strength recovery with pliometric training should be included in the post-surgical rehabilitation protocol and its measurement should be performed to assess the full recovery before the restart of sport activities.

Does whole-body cryotherapy improve vertical jump recovery following a high-intensity exercise bout?

Whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) has been used as a recovery strategy following different sports activities. Thus, the aim of the study reported here was to examine the effect of WBC on vertical jump recovery following a high-intensity exercise (HIE) bout. Twelve trained men (mean ± standard deviation age = 23.9±5.9 years) were randomly exposed to two different conditions separated by 7 days: 1) WBC (3 minutes of WBC at -110°C immediately after the HIE) and 2) control (CON; no WBC after the HIE). The HIE consisted of six sets of ten repetitions of knee extensions at 60° · s(-1) concentric and 180° · s(-1) eccentric on an isokinetic dynamometer. The vertical jump test was used to evaluate the influence of HIE on lower extremity muscular performance. The vertical jump was performed on a force platform before HIE (T1) and 30 minutes after (T2) the WBC and CON conditions. As a result of HIE, jump height, muscle power, and maximal velocity (Vmax) had significant decreases between T1 and T2, however no significance was found between the WBC and CON conditions. The results indicate that one session of WBC had no effect on vertical jump following an HIE compared with a CON condition. WBC may not improve muscle-function (dependent on stretch-shortening cycle) recovery in very short periods (ie, 30 minutes) following HIE.

Reversión del bloqueo neuromuscular inducido por vecuronio: sugammadex o neostigmina / Reversal of vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: sugammadex vs. neostigmine

Introducción: se han descrito diferencias entre la reversión de los bloqueantes neuromusculares con sugammadex y neostigmina. La mayoría concuerda que los resultados con sugammadex son superiores. Objetivos: comparar la capacidad del sugammadex y la neostigmina para revertir el bloqueo neuromuscular con vecuronio. Métodos: se realizó un estudio de casos y controles, para evaluar la capacidad del recobro muscular con vecuronio, tras la reversión con sugammadex y neostigmina. Se evaluó el recobro muscular por exploración clínica. Resultados: se estudiaron un total de 405 pacientes, al Grupo S, correspondieron 135 pacientes y al Grupo N 270. El tiempo medio de duración de la intervención quirúrgica, fue para el grupo S de 32,21±1,2 min y para el Grupo N de 33,16 ±1,2 min. El promedio de tiempo de la reversión en el grupo S fue de 2.2 minutos y en el grupo N de 14.4 min. La calidad de la recuperación, en ambos grupos fue buena, no obstante las diferencias observadas en la frecuencia de los revertidos con sugammadex, resultó estadísticamente significativa (p = 0.00001). Las complicaciones fueron mas frecuentes en el grupo N.Conclusiones: se corroboró la capacidad del sugammadex para revertir el bloqueo neuromuscular con vecuronio. El tiempo de reversión del bloqueo fue 6,54 veces más prolongado con neostigmina. La calidad de la recuperación fue 1.34 veces mejor con de sugammmadex. Las reacciones adversas fueron 11,02 veces mas frecuentes con neostigmina que con sugammadex(AU)

Introduction: studies are available about the differences between reversal of neuromuscular blockers with sugammadex and neostigmine. Most studies agree that results are better when sugammadex is used. Objectives: compare the capacity of sugammadex and neostigmine to revert vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. Methods: a case-control study was conducted to evaluate neuromuscular recovery with vecuronium after reversal with sugammadex and neostigmine. Muscular recovery was evaluated by clinical examination. Results: a total 405 patients were studied. Group S was composed of 135 patients and Group N of 270. Mean surgical duration was 32.21±1.2 min for Group S and 33.16 ±1.2 min for Group N. Average reversal time was 2.2 min in Group S and 14.4 min in Group N. The quality of recovery was good in both groups. However, the frequency differences found in patients reverted with sugammadex were statistically significant (p = 0.00001). Complications were more frequent in Group N. Conclusions: the capacity of sugammadex to revert vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade was confirmed. Reversal time was 6.54 longer with neostigmine. The quality of recovery was 1.34 times better with sugammadex. Adverse reactions were 11.02 times more frequent with neostigmine than with sugammadex(AU)

Reversión del bloqueo neuromuscular inducido por vecuronio: sugammadex o neostigmina / Reversal of vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: sugammadex vs. neostigmine

Introducción: se han descrito diferencias entre la reversión de los bloqueantes neuromusculares con sugammadex y neostigmina. La mayoría concuerda que los resultados con sugammadex son superiores. Objetivos: comparar la capacidad del sugammadex y la neostigmina para revertir el bloqueo neuromuscular con vecuronio. Métodos: se realizó un estudio de casos y controles, para evaluar la capacidad del recobro muscular con vecuronio, tras la reversión con sugammadex y neostigmina. Se evaluó el recobro muscular por exploración clínica. Resultados: se estudiaron un total de 405 pacientes, al Grupo S, correspondieron 135 pacientes y al Grupo N 270. El tiempo medio de duración de la intervención quirúrgica, fue para el grupo S de 32,21±1,2 min y para el Grupo N de 33,16 ±1,2 min. El promedio de tiempo de la reversión en el grupo S fue de 2.2 minutos y en el grupo N de 14.4 min. La calidad de la recuperación, en ambos grupos fue buena, no obstante las diferencias observadas en la frecuencia de los revertidos con sugammadex, resultó estadísticamente significativa (p = 0.00001). Las complicaciones fueron mas frecuentes en el grupo N. Conclusiones: se corroboró la capacidad del sugammadex para revertir el bloqueo neuromuscular con vecuronio. El tiempo de reversión del bloqueo fue 6,54 veces más prolongado con neostigmina. La calidad de la recuperación fue 1.34 veces mejor con de sugammmadex. Las reacciones adversas fueron 11,02 veces mas frecuentes con neostigmina que con sugammadex.

Introduction: studies are available about the differences between reversal of neuromuscular blockers with sugammadex and neostigmine. Most studies agree that results are better when sugammadex is used. Objectives: compare the capacity of sugammadex and neostigmine to revert vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. Methods: a case-control study was conducted to evaluate neuromuscular recovery with vecuronium after reversal with sugammadex and neostigmine. Muscular recovery was evaluated by clinical examination. Results: a total 405 patients were studied. Group S was composed of 135 patients and Group N of 270. Mean surgical duration was 32.21±1.2 min for Group S and 33.16 ±1.2 min for Group N. Average reversal time was 2.2 min in Group S and 14.4 min in Group N. The quality of recovery was good in both groups. However, the frequency differences found in patients reverted with sugammadex were statistically significant (p = 0.00001). Complications were more frequent in Group N. Conclusions: the capacity of sugammadex to revert vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade was confirmed. Reversal time was 6.54 longer with neostigmine. The quality of recovery was 1.34 times better with sugammadex. Adverse reactions were 11.02 times more frequent with neostigmine than with sugammadex.