Acute Effects of 3 Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Waveforms on Exercising and Recovery Microvascular Oxygenation Responses.

CONTEXT

When emphasizing muscular strength during postoperative rehabilitation it is recommended to use a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) waveform that elicits the greatest muscle force and local metabolic demand that is also well tolerated. The present investigation examined the effects that 3 different clinically used NMES waveforms had on the electrically elicited force (EEF), local metabolic demand (exercising muscle oxygen saturation [SmO2]), and the subsequent reactive hyperemia response (recovery total hemoglobin concentration [THb]) of the knee extensors.

DESIGN

Single session repeated-measures design.

METHODS

EEF, local metabolic demand, and reactive hyperemia responses were measured during and subsequent to 3 NMES waveforms: Russian burst modulated alternating current (RUS), biphasic pulsed current (VMS™), and burst modulated biphasic pulsed current (VMS-Burst™). Exercising SmO2 and recovery THb were assessed noninvasively using a near-infrared spectroscopy sensor placed on the vastus lateralis. Participants completed one set of 10 repetitions of each NMES waveform and were provided with 5 minutes of passive, interset recovery. Two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if NMES waveform or repetition significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or exercising SmO2. Two-way, repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if NMES waveform or recovery time affected recovery THb.

RESULTS

VMS™ and VMS-Burst™ yielded higher EEF (F = 11.839, P < .001) and greater local metabolic stress (lower exercising SmO2, F = 13.654, P < .001) compared with RUS. Greater rate of EEF decline throughout the NMES set was observed during RUS (%Δ = -50 [6] %Rep1) compared with VMS-Burst™ (%Δ = -30 [7] %Rep1) and VMS™ (%Δ = -32 [7] %Rep1). VMS™ elicited a higher reactive hyperemia response (higher recovery THb) compared with RUS (F = 3.427, P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings support the use of VMS™ or VMS-Burst™ compared with RUS when promoting muscular strength. In addition, the use of VMS™ might provide a greater blood volume to the target muscle subsequent to NMES contractions compared with RUS.