Dantas Lucas Ogura, Vieira Amilton, Siqueira Aristides Leite, Salvini Tania Fatima, Durigan João Luiz Quagliotti
Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.
Muscle Nerve. 2015 Jan;51(1):76-82. doi: 10.1002/mus.24280.
We studied the effects of different neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) currents, 2 kHz-frequency alternating currents (KACs, Russian and Aussie) and 2 pulsed currents (PCs), on isometric knee extension torque and discomfort level, both in isolation and combined, with maximum voluntary contraction (MVC).
Twenty-one women (age 21.6 ± 2.5 years) were studied. We evaluated torque evoked by NMES or NMES combined with maximum voluntary contraction of the quadriceps muscle of healthy women. Discomfort level was measured using a visual analog pain scale.
Despite comparable levels of discomfort, evoked torque was lower for Russian current compared with the other modalities (Russian 50.8%, Aussie 71.7%, PC500 76.9%, and PC200 70.1%; P < 0.001). There was no advantage in combining NMES with MVC compared with isolated NMES.
The Aussie and PC approaches proved superior to Russian current for inducing isometric knee extension torque. This information is important in guiding decision making with regard to NMES protocols for muscle strengthening.
我们研究了不同的神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)电流,即2千赫频率的交流电(KACs,俄罗斯式和澳大利亚式)以及两种脉冲电流(PCs),单独使用以及与最大自主收缩(MVC)联合使用时,对静态膝关节伸展扭矩和不适程度的影响。
对21名女性(年龄21.6±2.5岁)进行了研究。我们评估了NMES或NMES与健康女性股四头肌最大自主收缩联合使用时诱发的扭矩。使用视觉模拟疼痛量表测量不适程度。
尽管不适程度相当,但与其他方式相比,俄罗斯式电流诱发的扭矩较低(俄罗斯式50.8%,澳大利亚式71.7%,PC500 76.9%,PC200 70.1%;P<0.001)。与单独使用NMES相比,NMES与MVC联合使用没有优势。
事实证明,澳大利亚式和PC方式在诱发静态膝关节伸展扭矩方面优于俄罗斯式电流。该信息对于指导肌肉强化NMES方案的决策具有重要意义。