No abstract

No abstract

This is a case series study with the objective of comparing two motion sensor automated strategies to avert knee buckle during functional electrical stimulation (FES)-standing against a conventional hand-controlled (HC) FES approach. The research was conducted in a clinical exercise laboratory gymnasium at the University of Sydney, Australia. The automated strategies, Aut-A and Aut-B, applied fixed and variable changes of neurostimulation, respectively, in quadriceps amplitude to precisely control knee extension during standing. HC was an "on-demand" increase of stimulation amplitude to maintain stance. Finally, maximal FES amplitude (MA) was used as a control condition, whereby knee buckle was prevented by maximal isometric muscle recruitment. Four AIS-A paraplegics undertook 4 days of testing each, and each assessment day comprised three FES standing trials using the same strategy. Cardiorespiratory responses were recorded, and quadriceps muscle oxygenation was quantified using near-infrared spectroscopy. For all subjects, the longest standing times were observed during Aut-A, followed by Aut-B, and then HC and MA. The standing times of the automated strategies were superior to HC by 9-64%. Apart from a lower heart rates during standing (P = 0.034), the automation of knee extension did not promote different cardiorespiratory responses compared with HC. The standing times during MA were significantly shorter than during the automated or "on-demand" strategies (by 80-250%). In fact, the higher isometric-evoked quadriceps contraction during MA resulted in a greater oxygen demand (P < 0.0001) and wider arteriovenous oxygen extraction (P = 0.08) when compared with the other strategies. In conclusion, even though increased standing times were demonstrated using automated control of knee extension, physiological benefits compared with HC were not evident.

No abstract

No abstract