Cayot Trent E, Bellew James W, Zapata-Rodriguez Estefania, Rutherford Justin, Simpson Sofia, Somesan Sam, Edgerton Trevor, Labaw Dawson, Northam Joe, Bowling Caleb
Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Sciences, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Krannert School of Physical Therapy, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
J Sport Rehabil. 2024 Dec 10;34(5):484-491. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2024-0064. Print 2025 Jul 1.
Interest in the effects of concurrently using neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and blood flow restriction (BFR) to improve muscle strength has risen, but limited studies and inconsistent findings have led to more questions. The 2 current projects aimed to systematically investigate how NMES waveform shape and BFR occlusion pressure acutely influence electrically elicited force (EEF) and tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) of the knee extensors.
A single-session repeated-measures design was followed.
EEF and StO2 were measured in 2 different groups of 15 participants during 3 sets of NMES contractions. Ten NMES contractions per set were performed with 5 minutes of passive interset recovery. In the first project, different NMES waveforms (RUS, Russian burst-modulated alternating current; VMS, biphasic pulsed current; and VMS-Burst, burst-modulated biphasic pulsed current) were administered for each set, while BFR was applied at 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). During the second projet, VMS was administered, while a different BFR occlusion pressure (0% LOP, 40% LOP, and 80% LOP) was used during each set. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if repetition and/or NMES waveform (first project) or BFR occlusion pressure (second project) significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or StO2.
VMS (12% [7%] MVIF) and VMS-Burst (13% [10%] MVIF) led to higher EFF compared with RUS (6% [5%] MVIF) with 60% LOP; 80% LOP (20% [14%] MVIF) led to lower EEF compared with 0% LOP (29% [17%] MVIF) with VMS. No significant differences in StO2 were observed between NMES waveforms or BFR occlusion pressures.
If a clinician wanted to concurrently use NMES and BFR, the acute findings of the current projects would suggest the use of VMS or VMS-Burst with lower BFR occlusion pressure (40% LOP). However, further investigation into how these parameters would influence muscle strength subsequent to a training/rehabilitation intervention should be performed.
同时使用神经肌肉电刺激（NMES）和血流限制（BFR）来提高肌肉力量的效果受到关注，但研究有限且结果不一致，引发了更多问题。当前的两个项目旨在系统研究NMES波形形状和BFR闭塞压力如何急性影响膝伸肌的电诱发力（EEF）和组织氧饱和度（StO2）。
采用单组重复测量设计。
在3组NMES收缩过程中，对两组各15名参与者测量EEF和StO2。每组进行10次NMES收缩，组间被动恢复5分钟。在第一个项目中，每组采用不同的NMES波形（RUS，俄罗斯爆发调制交流电；VMS，双相脉冲电流；VMS - Burst，爆发调制双相脉冲电流），同时BFR施加于60%肢体闭塞压力（LOP）。在第二个项目中，施加VMS，每组采用不同的BFR闭塞压力（0% LOP、40% LOP和80% LOP）。采用双向重复测量方差分析来检验重复和/或NMES波形（第一个项目）或BFR闭塞压力（第二个项目）是否对EEF或StO2有显著影响（P < 0.05）。
在60% LOP时，与RUS（6% [5%] 最大自愿等长收缩力，MVIF）相比，VMS（12% [7%] MVIF）和VMS - Burst（13% [10%] MVIF）导致更高的EEF；在使用VMS时，80% LOP（20% [14%] MVIF）与0% LOP（29% [17%] MVIF）相比导致更低的EEF。在NMES波形或BFR闭塞压力之间未观察到StO2的显著差异。
如果临床医生想同时使用NMES和BFR，当前项目的急性研究结果表明应使用VMS或VMS - Burst并采用较低的BFR闭塞压力（40% LOP）。然而，应进一步研究这些参数在训练/康复干预后如何影响肌肉力量。
