Search Results

Context: Pulsed current and kilohertz frequency alternating current are 2 types of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) currents often used by clinicians during rehabilitation. However, the low methodological quality and the different NMES parameters and protocols used in several studies might explain their inconclusive results in terms of their effects in the evoked torque and the discomfort level. In addition, the neuromuscular efficiency (ie, the NMES current type that evokes the highest torque with the lowest current intensity) has not been established yet. Therefore, our objective was to compare the evoked torque, current intensity, neuromuscular efficiency (evoked torque/current intensity ratio), and discomfort between pulsed current and kilohertz frequency alternating current in healthy people. Design: A double-blind, randomized crossover trial. Methods: Thirty healthy men (23.2 [4.5] y) participated in the study. Each participant was randomized to 4 current settings: 2 kilohertz frequency alternating currents with 2.5 kHz of carrier frequency and similar pulse duration (0.4 ms) and burst frequency (100 Hz) but with different burst duty cycles (20% and 50%) and burst durations (2 and 5 ms); and 2 pulsed currents with similar pulse frequency (100 Hz) and different pulse duration (2 and 0.4 ms). The evoked torque, current intensity at the maximal tolerated intensity, neuromuscular efficiency, and discomfort level were evaluated. Results: Both pulsed currents generated higher evoked torque than the kilohertz frequency alternating currents, despite the similar between-currents discomfort levels. The 2 ms pulsed current showed lower current intensity and higher neuromuscular efficiency compared with both alternated currents and with the 0.4 ms pulsed current. Conclusions: The higher evoked torque, higher neuromuscular efficiency, and similar discomfort of the 2 ms pulsed current compared with 2.5-kHz frequency alternating current suggests this current as the best choice for clinicians to use in NMES-based protocols.

In this study, the effects of an exercise therapy comprising yoga exercises and medial-thrust gait (YogaMT) on lower-extremity kinetics, pain, and function in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis were investigated. Fifty-nine patients were randomly allocated to three treatment groups: (a) the YogaMT group practiced yoga exercises and medial thrust gait, (b) the knee-strengthening group performed quadriceps- and hamstring-strengthening exercises, and (c) the treadmill walking group practiced normal treadmill walking in 12 supervised sessions. The adduction and flexion moments of the hip, knee, and ankle; pain intensity; and 2-min walking test were assessed before and after treatment and at 1-month follow-up. The YogaMT group experienced a significant reduction in knee adduction moment. All groups showed significant improvement in pain and function. The YogaMT may reduce medial knee load in patients with knee osteoarthritis in the short term. A larger clinical trial is required to investigate the long-term outcomes of this intervention.

Context: Hypopressive exercise (HE) has been used as an alternative lumbo-pelvic injury prevention program and claimed to be a means of respiratory and flexibility improvement. However, the possible effects of HE on athletic populations and physical performance remain unclear. Objective: Examine the effects of a HE program on posterior back chain kinematics, thoracic mobility, pulmonary function, and lower lumbar pain in female basketball players over an 8-week training period. Design: Prospective (1) baseline, (2) midpoint (4 wk), and (3) after 8 weeks. Setting: Sports field. Participants: A total of 17 professional female basketball players (mean age 20.7 y, SD: 3.50; body mass index, 21.71, SD: 1.69). Intervention: Participants performed 8 HE weekly sessions of 30 minutes. Main Outcome Measures: Back chain kinematics was assessed with the sit and reach and finger to floor test, and back pain was assessed through numerical rating scale. Respiratory parameters were assessed by spirometry and through thoracic mobility. Results: The analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the 3 measurement periods for thoracic mobility (P > .01); forced expiratory volume in the first second (P < .05) while no statistical differences were found for the rest of spirometry outcomes. Significant differences were also revealed between baseline and after the intervention for the sit and reach test (P > .01), peak expiratory flow (P = .01), and forced expiratory volume in the first 25 seconds (P = .04). Also, significant differences between weeks were found in levels of lumbar pain (P = .003) and the finger to floor test (P = .002). Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that a HE program can improve posterior back chain and chest wall kinematics as well as lower lumbar pain levels. However, no gains seem to be observed for the majority of pulmonary variables except for peak expiratory flow and forced expiratory volume in the first seconds.