Differences in quadriceps femoris muscle torque when using a clinical electrical stimulator versus a portable electrical stimulator.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There have been conflicting views and evidence reported in the literature concerning differences in muscle torque-generating capacities between clinical ('plug-in') console devices whose power source is provided by an electrical outlet (60 Hz, alternating current-driven) and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Physical Therapy Vol. 85; no. 1; pp. 44 - 52
Autores principales: Lyons CL, Robb JB, Irrgang JJ, Fitzgerald GK
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Jan2005
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=106611043&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 106611043
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00319023
        PTH
      jtl: Physical Therapy
      issn: 00319023
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2005
      vid: 85
      iid: 1
      pid: 10398
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        106611043
        2005072066
        10.1093/ptj/85.1.44
        NLM15623361
        106611043
      ppf: 44
      ppct: 8
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Differences in quadriceps femoris muscle torque when using a clinical electrical stimulator versus a portable electrical stimulator.
      aug:
        au:
          Lyons CL
          Robb JB
          Irrgang JJ
          Fitzgerald GK
        affil: Assistant Chief, Physical Therapy Element, MacDill Hospital, 6th Medical Group, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla
      sug:
        subj:
          Electrical Stimulation, Neuromuscular Equipment and Supplies
          Thigh Physiology
          Muscle, Skeletal Physiology
          Isometric Contraction
          Portable Equipment
          Torque
          Dynamometry
          Comparative Studies
          Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
          kappa Statistic
          Confidence Intervals
          Test-Retest Reliability
          Paired T-Tests
          Adult
          Middle Age
          Female
          Male
          Human
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Female
          Male
      ab: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There have been conflicting views and evidence reported in the literature concerning differences in muscle torque-generating capacities between clinical ('plug-in') console devices whose power source is provided by an electrical outlet (60 Hz, alternating current-driven) and portable electrical muscle stimulators (smaller, battery-operated stimulators). The purpose of this study was to compare the torque-generating capacity of the quadriceps femoris muscle during neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) between a clinical neuromuscular electrical stimulator (VersaStim 380) and a portable neuromuscular electrical stimulator (Empi 300PV). SUBJECTS: Forty volunteer subjects with no known knee, neurological, or cardiovascular pathology (22 male, 18 female) participated in the study. METHODS: All subjects were tested with the clinical and portable stimulators on 2 separate days. Peak isometric torque of the quadriceps femoris muscle was measured using a Biodex dynamometer. Peak isometric quadriceps femoris muscle torque achieved during NMES and the average quadriceps femoris muscle torque integral produced over 10 NMES contractions were measured for each stimulator. Subjects also rated the amount of pain they experienced during the 10 NMES contractions using a numeric pain scale. Paired t tests were used to compare mean differences in measured variables between stimulator conditions. RESULTS: There were no differences in the peak torque or numeric pain ratings during the electrically stimulated contractions between stimulator conditions. The Empi 300PV produced a greater average torque integral compared with the VersaStim 380 during 10 electrically stimulated contractions (Empi 300PV=988.6-/+330.4 N.m-s, Versastim 380=822.7-/+292.6 N.m-s). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The portable Empi 300PV stimulator produced comparable levels of average peak torque at comparable levels of discomfort to those produced by the VersaStim 380 clinical stimulator. The Empi 300PV maintained greater amounts of torque production during a 10-contraction training session compared with the VersaStim 380. Based on these data, we believe that the Empi 300PV has the potential to produce adequate levels of torque production for NMES quadriceps femoris muscle performance training. Further study is needed to determine the effectiveness of using the Empi 300PV for quadriceps femoris muscle performance training.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N