Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Waveforms and Occlusion Pressures on Elicited Force and Microvascular Oxygenation.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Trent E Cayot, James W Bellew, Estefania Zapata-Rodriguez, Justin Rutherford, Sofia Simpson, Sam Somesan, Trevor Edgerton, Dawson Labaw, Joe Northam, Caleb Bowling
{"title":"Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Waveforms and Occlusion Pressures on Elicited Force and Microvascular Oxygenation.","authors":"Trent E Cayot, James W Bellew, Estefania Zapata-Rodriguez, Justin Rutherford, Sofia Simpson, Sam Somesan, Trevor Edgerton, Dawson Labaw, Joe Northam, Caleb Bowling","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Interest in the effects of concurrently using neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and blood flow restriction (BFR) to improve muscle strength has risen, but limited studies and inconsistent findings have led to more questions. The 2 current projects aimed to systematically investigate how NMES waveform shape and BFR occlusion pressure acutely influence electrically elicited force (EEF) and tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) of the knee extensors.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-session repeated-measures design was followed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EEF and StO2 were measured in 2 different groups of 15 participants during 3 sets of NMES contractions. Ten NMES contractions per set were performed with 5 minutes of passive interset recovery. In the first project, different NMES waveforms (RUS, Russian burst-modulated alternating current; VMS, biphasic pulsed current; and VMS-Burst, burst-modulated biphasic pulsed current) were administered for each set, while BFR was applied at 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). During the second projet, VMS was administered, while a different BFR occlusion pressure (0% LOP, 40% LOP, and 80% LOP) was used during each set. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if repetition and/or NMES waveform (first project) or BFR occlusion pressure (second project) significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or StO2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>VMS (12% [7%] MVIF) and VMS-Burst (13% [10%] MVIF) led to higher EFF compared with RUS (6% [5%] MVIF) with 60% LOP; 80% LOP (20% [14%] MVIF) led to lower EEF compared with 0% LOP (29% [17%] MVIF) with VMS. No significant differences in StO2 were observed between NMES waveforms or BFR occlusion pressures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>If a clinician wanted to concurrently use NMES and BFR, the acute findings of the current projects would suggest the use of VMS or VMS-Burst with lower BFR occlusion pressure (40% LOP). However, further investigation into how these parameters would influence muscle strength subsequent to a training/rehabilitation intervention should be performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0064","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Interest in the effects of concurrently using neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and blood flow restriction (BFR) to improve muscle strength has risen, but limited studies and inconsistent findings have led to more questions. The 2 current projects aimed to systematically investigate how NMES waveform shape and BFR occlusion pressure acutely influence electrically elicited force (EEF) and tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) of the knee extensors.

Design: A single-session repeated-measures design was followed.

Methods: EEF and StO2 were measured in 2 different groups of 15 participants during 3 sets of NMES contractions. Ten NMES contractions per set were performed with 5 minutes of passive interset recovery. In the first project, different NMES waveforms (RUS, Russian burst-modulated alternating current; VMS, biphasic pulsed current; and VMS-Burst, burst-modulated biphasic pulsed current) were administered for each set, while BFR was applied at 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). During the second projet, VMS was administered, while a different BFR occlusion pressure (0% LOP, 40% LOP, and 80% LOP) was used during each set. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if repetition and/or NMES waveform (first project) or BFR occlusion pressure (second project) significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or StO2.

Results: VMS (12% [7%] MVIF) and VMS-Burst (13% [10%] MVIF) led to higher EFF compared with RUS (6% [5%] MVIF) with 60% LOP; 80% LOP (20% [14%] MVIF) led to lower EEF compared with 0% LOP (29% [17%] MVIF) with VMS. No significant differences in StO2 were observed between NMES waveforms or BFR occlusion pressures.

Conclusions: If a clinician wanted to concurrently use NMES and BFR, the acute findings of the current projects would suggest the use of VMS or VMS-Burst with lower BFR occlusion pressure (40% LOP). However, further investigation into how these parameters would influence muscle strength subsequent to a training/rehabilitation intervention should be performed.

神经肌肉电刺激波形和闭塞压力对诱导力和微血管氧合的影响。
背景:人们对同时使用神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)和血流限制(BFR)来改善肌肉力量的影响越来越感兴趣,但有限的研究和不一致的发现导致了更多的问题。目前的两个项目旨在系统地研究NMES波形形状和BFR阻塞压力如何严重影响膝伸肌的电致力(EEF)和组织氧饱和度(StO2)。设计:采用单次重复测量设计。方法:测定两组15名受试者在3组NMES宫缩过程中的EEF和StO2。每组进行10次NMES收缩,并进行5分钟的被动兴趣恢复。在第一个项目中,不同的NMES波形(RUS,俄罗斯突发调制交流电;VMS:双相脉冲电流;每组给予VMS-Burst(突发调制双相脉冲电流),而BFR在60%肢体闭塞压(LOP)下施加。在第二个项目中,使用VMS,同时在每次设置中使用不同的BFR闭塞压力(0% LOP, 40% LOP和80% LOP)。双向重复测量方差分析检查重复和/或NMES波形(第一个项目)或BFR闭塞压力(第二个项目)是否显著影响EEF或StO2 (P < 0.05)。结果:与60% LOP的RUS (6% [5%] MVIF)相比,VMS (12% [7%] MVIF)和VMS- burst (13% [10%] MVIF)导致EFF升高;与0% LOP (29% [17%] MVIF)合并VMS相比,80% LOP (20% [14%] MVIF)导致EEF降低。在NMES波形和BFR闭塞压力之间没有观察到明显的StO2差异。结论:如果临床医生想同时使用NMES和BFR,当前项目的急性发现将建议使用VMS或VMS- burst较低的BFR闭塞压力(40% LOP)。然而,这些参数如何影响训练/康复干预后肌肉力量的进一步调查应该进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
143
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant. JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信