Background:Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is used to prevent venous stasis and thromboembolism. However, best electrostimulation parameters have yet to be established. The aim of the study was to compare the hemodynamic effects and the participants’ relative discomfort of 3 TENS sequences at the maximum tolerated intensity stimulus.Methods:Twenty-four healthy university students (50% male) participated in a cross-over, randomized study. Each participant received 2 TENS sequences on peroneal nerve at 1 and 5 Hz, and the third one on soleus muscle at 5 Hz. Popliteal flow volume (FV) and peak velocity (PV) were measured using Doppler ultrasound and the relative change from basal values was recorded. Discomfort questionnaires -visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS)- were also administered to compare sensations among the three applications.Results:All interventions produced significant hemodynamic responses compared to baseline. Both 5 Hz applications obtained higher FV increments than 1 Hz TENS (P < .001). The muscle application resulted in the lowest PV increment (P < .001). TENS at 5 Hz on nerve location was the worst tolerated, with higher values in VRS (P = .056) and VAS (P = .11), although not significant.Conclusion:TENS at 5 Hz on soleus site may be the most appropriate protocol for enhancing venous return.
Background: Activation of venous flow has been shown with different types of electrical stimulation. The aim of this study is to compare the hemodynamic effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), and sham stimulation on healthy young people.Methods: This randomized crossover study was conducted during June 2018 in the Faculty of Physical Therapy of A Coruña (Spain). Twenty-four university students (50% male) received in a randomized order 5 Hz-TENS, NMES, and sham stimulation on soleus muscle. Flow volume (FV) and peak velocity (PV) from popliteal vein were recorded via Doppler ultrasound, and relative changes from baseline were determined. Discomfort among the 3 stimulations was also compared.Results: The differences among the 3 stimulations were assessed using the ANOVA for repeated measured, the Friedman test and the Kendall tau test, according to the type of measurement to be compared. FV (mL/min) and PV (cm/s) increased significantly after NMES (percentual increase 37.2 ± 62.0%, P = .002; 264.4 ± 152.2%, P < .001, respectively) and TENS (226.2 ± 190.3%, P < .001; 202.7 ± 144.6%, P < .001, respectively). These percentual changes from basal level in hemodynamics were statistically different to those after placebo, which was ineffective enhancing hemodynamics. The improvements in FV were statistically higher with TENS than with NMES (P < .001), but there was no statistical difference in PV (P = .531). Despite NMES was applied at a significantly lower amplitude than TENS (P < .001), NMES protocol was the worst tolerated, though the differences in discomfort were not statistically significant. Conclusion:Both active electrical protocols but not sham stimulation increased hemodynamics in healthy people. TENS obtained higher flow volume increase from baseline than NMES, considered globally at not only in its on-time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.