Tørhaug Tom, Brurok Berit, Hoff Jan, Helgerud Jan, Leivseth Gunnar
St. Olavs University Hospital, Clinic of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Spinal Cord Injuries, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Trondheim, Norway.
Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2018 Winter;24(1):86-95. doi: 10.1310/sci17-00029. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
: To test whether passive leg cycling (PLC) during arm cycling ergometry (ACE) affects peak oxygen uptake (VO) differently in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) at/above the 6th thoracic vertebra (T6) and below T6. We conducted a cross-sectional study, analyzed by univariate and multivariate regression models. Between- and within-group differences were examined during (a) ACE only, (b) ACE combined with PLC (ACE-PLC), and (c) ACE combined with functional electrical stimulation cycling (FES hybrid). Fifteen SCI subjects were recruited and grouped according to injury level: at/above T6 (SCI-high, = 8) or below T6 (SCI-low, = 7). VO tests during ACE only, ACE-PLC, and FES hybrid were performed in random order on separate days. : In the SCI-high group, mean () VO was 19% higher during ACE-PLC than during ACE only [21.0 (3.8) vs 17.7 (5.0) mL·kg·min; = .002], while VO during FES hybrid cycling was 16% higher than during ACE-PLC [24.4 (4.1) mL·kg·min; = .001]. No significant differences among exercise modalities were found for the SCI-low group. : Additional training modalities (eg, PLC) during ACE facilitate exercise in SCI-high individuals, but not to the level of the FES hybrid method. Conversely, additional training modalities may not increase training load in SCI-low individuals.
为了测试在手臂循环测力计（ACE）测试期间进行被动腿部循环（PLC）是否会对第6胸椎（T6）及以上和T6以下脊髓损伤（SCI）个体的峰值摄氧量（VO）产生不同影响。我们进行了一项横断面研究，采用单变量和多变量回归模型进行分析。在以下三种情况下检查组间和组内差异：（a）仅进行ACE，（b）ACE联合PLC（ACE-PLC），以及（c）ACE联合功能性电刺激循环（FES混合）。招募了15名SCI受试者，并根据损伤水平进行分组：T6及以上（高位SCI，n = 8）或T6以下（低位SCI，n = 7）。仅ACE、ACE-PLC和FES混合期间的VO测试在不同日期以随机顺序进行。：在高位SCI组中，ACE-PLC期间的平均（±标准差）VO比仅ACE期间高19%[21.0（3.8）对17.7（5.0）mL·kg·min；P = .002]，而FES混合循环期间的VO比ACE-PLC期间高16%[24.4（4.1）mL·kg·min；P = .001]。低位SCI组在不同运动方式之间未发现显著差异。：ACE期间的额外训练方式（如PLC）有助于高位SCI个体进行运动，但未达到FES混合方法的水平。相反，额外训练方式可能不会增加低位SCI个体的训练负荷。
