Ostrowski Jennifer, Purchio Angelina, Beck Maria, Leisinger JoLynn, Tucker Mackenzie, Hurst Sarah
J Sport Rehabil. 2018 May 1;27(3):244-248. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2016-0244. Epub 2018 May 10.
Previous research has found ice bags are more effective at lowering intramuscular temperature than gel packs. Recent studies have evaluated intramuscular temperature cooling decreases with ice bag versus Game Ready and with the PowerPlay system wetted ice bag inserts; however, intramuscular temperature decreases elicited by PowerPlay with the standard frozen gel pack inserts have not been examined.
Evaluate the rate and magnitude of cooling using PowerPlay with frozen gel pack (PP-gel) option, PowerPlay with wetted ice bag (PP-ice) option, and control (no treatment) on skin and intramuscular temperature (2 cm subadipose).
Repeated-measures counterbalanced study.
University research laboratory.
Twelve healthy college-aged participants (4 men and 8 women; age = 23.08 (1.93) y, height = 171.66 (9.47) cm, mass = 73.67 (13.46) kg, and subcutaneous thickness = 0.90 (0.35) cm).
INTERVENTION(S): PowerPlay (70 mm Hg) with either wetted ice bag or frozen gel pack was applied to posterior aspect of nondominant calf for 30 minutes; control lay prone for 30 minutes. Participants underwent each treatment in counterbalanced order (minimum 4 d, maximum 10 d between).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Muscle temperature was measured via 21-gauge catheter thermocouple (IT-21; Physitemp Instruments, Inc). Skin temperature was measured via surface thermocouple (SST-1; Physitemp Instruments, Inc).
Significant treatment-by-time interaction for muscle cooling (F = 11.262, P = .01, [Formula: see text], observed β = 0.905) was observed. PP-ice cooled faster than both PP-gel and control from minutes 12 to 30 (all Ps < .05); PP-gel cooled faster than control from minutes 18 to 30 (all Ps < .05). Mean decreases from baseline: PP-ice = 4.8°C (2.8°C), PP-gel = 2.3°C (0.8°C), and control = 1.1°C (0.4°C). Significant treatment-by-time interaction for skin cooling (F = 23.920, P = .001, [Formula: see text], observed β = 0.998) was observed. PP-ice cooled faster than both PP-gel and control from minutes 6 to 30 (all Ps < .05); PP-gel cooled faster than control from minutes 12 to 30 (all Ps < .05). Mean decreases from baseline: PP-ice = 14.6°C (4.8°C), PP-gel = 4.0°C (0.9°C), and control = 1.0°C (1.0°C).
PP-ice produces clinically and statistically greater muscle and skin cooling compared with PP-gel and control.
先前的研究发现，冰袋在降低肌肉温度方面比凝胶袋更有效。最近的研究评估了冰袋与Game Ready以及PowerPlay系统湿冰袋插入物相比，肌肉温度的降低情况；然而，尚未对使用标准冷冻凝胶袋插入物的PowerPlay引起的肌肉温度降低进行研究。
评估使用带冷冻凝胶袋（PP-凝胶）选项的PowerPlay、带湿冰袋（PP-冰）选项的PowerPlay以及对照（不治疗）对皮肤和肌肉温度（皮下2厘米处）的冷却速率和幅度。
重复测量平衡研究。
大学研究实验室。
12名健康的大学生（4名男性和8名女性；年龄=23.08（1.93）岁，身高=171.66（9.47）厘米，体重=73.67（13.46）千克，皮下厚度=0.90（0.35）厘米）。
将带湿冰袋或冷冻凝胶袋的PowerPlay（70毫米汞柱）应用于非优势小腿后侧30分钟；对照组俯卧30分钟。参与者以平衡的顺序接受每种治疗（间隔至少4天，最多10天）。
通过21号导管热电偶（IT-21；Physitemp仪器公司）测量肌肉温度。通过表面热电偶（SST-1；Physitemp仪器公司）测量皮肤温度。
观察到肌肉冷却存在显著的治疗×时间交互作用（F=11.262，P=0.01，[公式：见原文]，观察到的β=0.905）。从第12分钟到第30分钟，PP-冰的冷却速度比PP-凝胶和对照组都快（所有P值<0.05）；从第18分钟到第30分钟，PP-凝胶的冷却速度比对照组快（所有P值<0.05）。与基线相比的平均降低值：PP-冰=4.8°C（2.8°C），PP-凝胶=2.3°C（0.8°C），对照组=1.1°C（0.4°C）。观察到皮肤冷却存在显著的治疗×时间交互作用（F=23.920，P=0.001，[公式：见原文]，观察到的β=0.998）。从第6分钟到第30分钟，PP-冰的冷却速度比PP-凝胶和对照组都快（所有P值<0.05）；从第12分钟到第30分钟，PP-凝胶的冷却速度比对照组快（所有P值<0.05）。与基线相比的平均降低值：PP-冰=14.6°C（4.8°C），PP-凝胶=4.0°C（0.9°C），对照组=1.0°C（1.0°C）。
与PP-凝胶和对照组相比，PP-冰在临床上和统计学上能使肌肉和皮肤产生更大程度的冷却。
