Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Assunto principal
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Sport Rehabil ; 31(5): 554-561, 2022 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35135899

RESUMO

CONTEXT: When emphasizing muscular strength during postoperative rehabilitation it is recommended to use a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) waveform that elicits the greatest muscle force and local metabolic demand that is also well tolerated. The present investigation examined the effects that 3 different clinically used NMES waveforms had on the electrically elicited force (EEF), local metabolic demand (exercising muscle oxygen saturation [SmO2]), and the subsequent reactive hyperemia response (recovery total hemoglobin concentration [THb]) of the knee extensors. DESIGN: Single session repeated-measures design. METHODS: EEF, local metabolic demand, and reactive hyperemia responses were measured during and subsequent to 3 NMES waveforms: Russian burst modulated alternating current (RUS), biphasic pulsed current (VMS™), and burst modulated biphasic pulsed current (VMS-Burst™). Exercising SmO2 and recovery THb were assessed noninvasively using a near-infrared spectroscopy sensor placed on the vastus lateralis. Participants completed one set of 10 repetitions of each NMES waveform and were provided with 5 minutes of passive, interset recovery. Two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if NMES waveform or repetition significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or exercising SmO2. Two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if NMES waveform or recovery time affected recovery THb. RESULTS: VMS™ and VMS-Burst™ yielded higher EEF (F = 11.839, P < .001) and greater local metabolic stress (lower exercising SmO2, F = 13.654, P < .001) compared with RUS. Greater rate of EEF decline throughout the NMES set was observed during RUS (%Δ = -50 [6] %Rep1) compared with VMS-Burst™ (%Δ = -30 [7] %Rep1) and VMS™ (%Δ = -32 [7] %Rep1). VMS™ elicited a higher reactive hyperemia response (higher recovery THb) compared with RUS (F = 3.427, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings support the use of VMS™ or VMS-Burst™ compared with RUS when promoting muscular strength. In addition, the use of VMS™ might provide a greater blood volume to the target muscle subsequent to NMES contractions compared with RUS.


Assuntos
Hiperemia , Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Humanos , Joelho/fisiologia , Força Muscular , Músculo Esquelético , Músculo Quadríceps/fisiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...