The aims of this study are to determine prevalence and co-occurrence of musculoskeletal pain (MSP) among shellfish gatherers and its consequences for the use of medicine, health care, and sickness leave and to investigate predictive factors (sociodemographic, lifestyle, comorbidity) of MSP in five anatomical areas (neck/shoulder/higher back, lower back, elbow/wrist/hand, hip/knee, and leg/ankle/foot). Nine hundred twenty-nine shellfish gatherers (94% women) voluntarily took part in a physiotherapy workshop. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess MSP and its consequences. Regression models were performed to determine the factors predicting the presence of MSP. The two most frequently self-reported forms of MSP were neck pain (70.9%) and lower back pain (65.5%). Sixty-four percent of respondents reported contact with their family doctor during the last 12 months due to MSP, and most subjects (88.1%) reported MSP in two or more locations. Hip/knee pain was associated with leg/ankle/foot pain (crude odds ratio = 3.14). Logistic regression analysis showed that being female and young is associated with lumbar pain, and being older is associated with pain in all areas of the lower limbs. The number of pain sites a person reported significantly predicted the presence of pain in all the anatomical areas studied. Prevalence of MSP and musculoskeletal comorbidity were high. The study shows that the presence of pain reported in one body area is highly dependent on the total number of painful areas. These findings are consistent with those of similar studies.

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.