Effects on hemodynamic enhancement and discomfort of a new textile electrode integrated in a sock during calf neuromuscular electrical stimulation.

PURPOSE: To compare fixed transverse textile electrodes (TTE) knitted into a sock versus motor point placed standard gel electrodes (MPE) on peak venous velocity (PVV) and discomfort, during calf neuromuscular electrical stimulation (calf-NMES). METHODS: Ten healthy participants received calf-NMES with increasing intensity until plantar flexion (measurement level I = ML I), and an additional mean 4 mA intensity (ML II), utilizing TTE and MPE. PVV was measured with Doppler ultrasound in the popliteal and femoral veins at baseline, ML I and II. Discomfort was assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10). Significance was set to p < 0.05. RESULTS: TTE and MPE both induced significant increases in PVV from baseline to ML I and significantly higher increases to ML II, in both the popliteal and femoral veins (all p < 0.001). The popliteal increases of PVV from baseline to both ML I and II were significantly higher with TTE versus MPE (p < 0.05). The femoral increases of PVV from baseline to both ML I and II were not significantly different between TTE and MPE. TTE versus MPE resulted at ML I in higher mA and NRS (p < 0.001), and at ML II in higher mA (p = 0.005) while NRS was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: TTE integrated in a sock produces intensity-dependent increases of popliteal and femoral hemodynamics comparable to MPE, but results in more discomfort at plantar flexion due to higher current required. TTE exhibits in the popliteal vein higher increases of PVV compared to MPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial_ID: ISRCTN49260430. Date: 11/01/2022. Retrospectively registered.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation in garments optimized for compliance.

PURPOSE: Physical inactivity is associated with muscle atrophy and venous thromboembolism, which may be prevented by neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). This study aimed to investigate the effect on discomfort, current amplitude and energy consumption when varying the frequency and phase duration of low-intensity NMES (LI-NMES) via a sock with knitting-integrated transverse textile electrodes (TTE). METHODS: On eleven healthy participants (four females), calf-NMES via a TTE sock was applied with increasing intensity (mA) until ankle-plantar flexion at which point outcomes were compared when testing frequencies 1, 3, 10 and 36 Hz and phase durations 75, 150, 200, 300 and 400 µs. Discomfort was assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10) and energy consumption was calculated and expressed in milli-Joule (mJ). Significance set to p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: 1 Hz yielded a median (inter-quartile range) NRS of 2.4 (1.0-3.4), significantly lower than both 3 Hz with NRS 2.8 (1.8-4.2), and 10 Hz with NRS 3.4 (1.4-5.4) (both p ≤ .014). Each increase in tested frequency resulted in significantly higher energy consumption, e.g. 0.6 mJ (0.5-0.8) for 1 Hz vs 14.9 mJ (12.3-21.2) for 36 Hz (p = .003). Longer phase durations had no significant effect on discomfort despite generally requiring significantly lower current amplitudes. Phase durations 150, 200 and 400 µs required significantly lower energy consumption compared to 75 µs (all p ≤ .037). CONCLUSION: LI-NMES applied via a TTE sock produces a relevant plantar flexion of the ankle with the best comfort and lowest energy consumption using 1 Hz and phase durations 150, 200 or 400 µs.

Motor point heatmap guide for neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the quadriceps muscle.

PURPOSE: To create an anatomical chart that indicates the probability of finding a motor point (MP) in different areas of the quadriceps muscle. METHODS: On 31 healthy adults, the individual anatomy of the vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL) was determined using ultrasound. Thereafter, a 3 Hz neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) MP-search with a MP-pen was performed. The thigh anatomy was normalized and divided into 112 (8x14) 3x3cm areas, and the probability of finding a MP in the different areas was calculated to create a MP heat-map. RESULTS: The heat-map displayed the two best 3x3cm areas, over VL and VM respectively, each with a probability greater than 50% of finding a MP and a higher probability compared to all other areas (p <.05). RF exhibited two areas with a 29% probability of finding a MP. A higher number of MPs on the quadriceps, mean (±SD) 9.4 ± 1, was in regression analysis found to be significantly associated with two independent factors higher physical activity level and lower body fat (R2 = 0.42, p=<.0001). CONCLUSION: Large inter-individual variations in location, and number of MPs were found, but the heat-map displayed areas with higher probability of finding a MP and can be used to facilitate NMES-application.

Knee extensor force production and discomfort during neuromuscular electrical stimulation of quadriceps with and without gluteal muscle co-stimulation.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) simultaneously applied on the quadriceps (Q) and gluteal (G) muscles, as compared to single Q-stimulation alters the knee extensor force production and discomfort. METHODS: A total of 11 healthy participants (6 females), with normal weight and age between 19 and 54 years were included. The unilateral, isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) was assessed for each participant in an isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex, system 3). NMES was, in a randomized order, applied only on the Q-muscle and on the Q- and G-muscles (QG) simultaneously. NMES-intensity was increased stepwise until the maximal tolerable level was reached regarding discomfort, graded according to the visual analogue scale (VAS). VAS and the % of MVC produced by NMES, were registered for each level, expressed as median (inter-quartile range). RESULTS: The maximum tolerated NMES-intensity applied on Q compared to QG resulted in equally high discomfort, 8.0 (6.0-9.0) vs 8.0 (6.3-9.0), and in equivalent knee extensor force production, 36.7 (29.9-47.5) and 36.2 (28.9-49.3), respectively, in % of MVC. At 20% of MVC, NMES applied on Q compared to QG resulted in equal acceptable discomfort, 3.0 (2.0-4.5) vs 3.0 (3-5.5), and comparable intensity levels, 41.5 (38.0-45.8) vs 43.5 (37.0-48.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous QG-NMES, as compared to single Q-NMES, does not seem to affect the knee extensor force production or discomfort. Q-NMES, without voluntary muscle contraction, can with an acceptable level of discomfort result in at least 20% of MVC.

Effects of electrode size and placement on comfort and efficiency during low-intensity neuromuscular electrical stimulation of quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteal muscles.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) may prevent muscle atrophy, accelerate rehabilitation and enhance blood circulation. Yet, one major drawback is that patient compliance is impeded by the discomfort experienced. It is well-known that the size and placement of electrodes affect the comfort and effect during high-intensity NMES. However, during low-intensity NMES the effects of electrode size/placement are mostly unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how electrode size and pragmatic placement affect comfort and effect of low-intensity NMES in the thigh and gluteal muscles. METHODS: On 15 healthy participants, NMES-intensity (mA) was increased until visible muscle contraction, applied with three electrode sizes (2 × 2 cm, 5 × 5 cm, 5 × 9 cm), in three different configurations on quadriceps and hamstrings (short-transverse (ST), long-transverse (LT), longitudinal (L)) and two configurations on gluteus maximus (short-longitudinal (SL) and long-longitudinal (LL)). Current-density (mA/cm2) required for contraction was calculated for each electrode size. Comfort was assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10). Significance was set to p < 0.05 and values were expressed as median (inter-quartile range). RESULTS: On quadriceps the LT-placement exhibited significantly better comfort and lower current intensity than the ST- and L-placements. On hamstrings the L-placement resulted in the best comfort together with the lowest intensity. On gluteus maximus the LL-placement demonstrated better comfort and required less intensity than SL-placement. On all muscles, the 5 × 5 cm and 5 × 9 cm electrodes were significantly more comfortable and required less current-density for contraction than the 2 × 2 cm electrode. CONCLUSION: During low-intensity NMES-treatment, an optimized electrode size and practical placement on each individual muscle of quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteals is crucial for comfort and intensity needed for muscle contraction.