Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, University of Mary, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504, USA.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Dec;90(12):999-1011. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318238a2cf.
The purpose of this study was to compare electrically induced contraction levels produced by three patterns of alternating current in fatigued and nonfatigued skeletal muscles.
Eighteen male volunteers without health conditions, with a mean (SD) age of 24.9 (3.4) yrs were randomly exposed to a fatiguing volitional isometric quadriceps contraction and one of three patterns of 2.5-KHz alternating current; two were modulated at 50 bursts per second (10% burst duty cycle with five cycles per burst and 90% burst duty cycle with 45 cycles per burst), and one pattern was modulated at 100 bursts per second (10% burst duty cycle with 2.5 cycles per burst). The electrically induced contraction levels produced by the three patterns of electrical stimulation were compared before and after the fatiguing contraction.
The 10% burst duty cycles produced 42.9% (95% confidence interval, 29.1%-56.7%) and 32.1% (95% confidence interval, 18.2%-45.9%) more muscle force (P < 0.001) than did the 90% burst duty cycle pattern. There was no significant interaction effect (P = 0.392) of electrical stimulation patterns and fatigue on the electrically induced contraction levels.
The lower burst duty cycle (10%) patterns of electrical stimulation produced stronger muscle contractions. Furthermore, the stimulation patterns had no influence on the difference in muscle force before and after the fatiguing quadriceps contraction. Consequently, for clinical applications in which high forces are desired, the patterns using the 10% burst duty cycle may be helpful.
本研究旨在比较三种交流电模式在疲劳和非疲劳骨骼肌中产生的电诱发收缩水平。
18 名无健康问题的男性志愿者,平均(SD)年龄 24.9(3.4)岁,随机接受疲劳性等长股四头肌收缩和三种 2.5kHz 交流电模式之一的暴露;两种模式调制频率为 50 次/秒(10% 脉冲占空比,每个脉冲 5 个周期,90% 脉冲占空比,每个脉冲 45 个周期),一种模式调制频率为 100 次/秒(10% 脉冲占空比,每个脉冲 2.5 个周期)。比较三种电刺激模式产生的电诱发收缩水平在疲劳收缩前后的差异。
10% 脉冲占空比模式产生的肌肉力分别增加了 42.9%(95%置信区间,29.1%-56.7%)和 32.1%(95%置信区间,18.2%-45.9%)(P<0.001),高于 90% 脉冲占空比模式。电刺激模式和疲劳对电诱发收缩水平的交互作用无显著影响(P=0.392)。
较低的脉冲占空比(10%)模式产生更强的肌肉收缩。此外,刺激模式对疲劳股四头肌收缩前后肌肉力量的差异没有影响。因此,对于需要高力的临床应用,使用 10% 脉冲占空比的模式可能会有所帮助。