We aimed to investigate the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on muscle strength, pain relief, and improvement in function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Databases were searched from December 2017 to July 2020 and included PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A manual search was also performed by checking the reference lists of eligible articles. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The studies selected compared NMES with an exercise program on isometric muscle strength as a primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were pain and function. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias assessment and PEDro scale, and the overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Eight studies were included in this systematic review. A total of 571 patients were analyzed. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation associated with exercise promoted an increase in isometric strength of the quadriceps muscle compared to the active control group, demonstrating heterogeneity and statistical difference (95% CI=1.16 to 5.10, I2=97%, p=0.002; very low-certainty evidence). NMES associated with exercise did not improve physical function (95% CI=−0.37 to 0.59, I2=0%, p=0.67; low-certainty evidence) and showed controversial results for pain compared to an active control group (qualitative assessment). In conclusion, NMES induces an increase in muscle strength in patients with osteoarthritis compared to an active control group. No differences were found for physical function and pain outcomes. Further research is needed due to the uncertain level of evidence.
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can be delivered in a conventional form (CONVNMES) and using relatively wide-pulses and high-frequencies (WPHFNMES). WPHFNMES is proposed to reduce contraction fatigability and generate larger contractions with less discomfort than CONVNMES, however, there are no systematic reviews to guide the selection of NMES types. This systematic review compared the effects of CONVNMES versus WPHFNMES on contraction fatigability, strength adaptations, and perceived discomfort in clinical and non-clinical populations. Eight studies were included. When averaged across all non-clinical participants in individual short- and long-term studies, there was either no difference between CONVNMES and WPHFNMES for all outcomes or WPHFNMES produced more fatigability. In a subset of non-clinical participants (“responders”), however, WPHFNMES reduced contraction fatigability during a single session. Long-term studies found no differences between protocols for strength adaptations in non-clinical participants and those with multiple sclerosis. We concluded that WPHFNMES reduces contraction fatigability only in the short-term and in non-clinical responder participants and may exacerbate fatigability in non-responders. This review was registered in the prospective international registry of systematic reviews/PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42020153907, accessed at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). Novelty bullets: • WPHF NMES may reduce fatigue in some participants and exacerbate fatigue in others. • There were no differences in long-term between WPHF and CONV NMES on strength adaptations. • Future high-quality research is needed to optimize outcomes of NMES-based programs.
Background In this work, we share the enhancements made in our system to take part in the CYBATHLON 2020 Global Edition Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Bike Race. Among the main improvements, firstly an overhaul, an overhaul of the system and user interface developed with User-centered design principles with remote access to enable telerehabilitation. Secondly, the implementation and experimental comparison between the traditional single electrode stimulation (SES) and spatially distributed sequential stimulation (SDSS) applied for FES Cycling. Methods We report on the main aspects of the developed system. To evaluate the user perception of the system, we applied a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire. In comparing SDSS and SES, we collected data from one subject in four sessions, each simulating one race in the CYBATHLON format. Results User perception measured with SUS indicates a positive outcome in the developed system. The SDSS trials were superior in absolute and average values to SES regarding total distance covered and velocity. We successfully competed in the CYBATHLON 2020 Global Edition, finishing in 6th position in the FES Bike Race category. Conclusions The CYBATHLON format induced us to put the end-user in the center of our system design principle, which was well perceived. However, further improvements are required if the intention is to progress to a commercial product. FES Cycling performance in SDSS trials was superior when compared to SES trials, indicating that this technique may enable faster and possibly longer FES cycling sessions for individuals with paraplegia. More extensive studies are required to assess these aspects.
Background: There are extensive studies focusing on non-invasive modalities to recover physiological systems after exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). Whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) and Partial-body cryotherapy (PBC) have been recommended for recovery after EIMD. However, to date, no systematic reviews have been performed to compare their effects on muscle performance and muscle recovery markers. Methods: This systematic review with metanalysis compared the effects of WBC and PBC on muscle performance, muscle soreness (DOMS), and markers of muscular damage following EIMD. We used Pubmed, Embase, PEDro, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as data sources. Two independent reviewers verified the methodological quality of the studies. The studies were selected if they used WBC and PBC modalities as treatment and included muscle performance and muscle soreness (DOMS) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were creatine kinase and heart rate variability. Results: Six studies with a pooled sample of 120 patients were included. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate, with an average of 4.3 on a 0–10 scale (PEDro). Results: Both cryotherapy modalities induce similar effects without difference between them. Conclusion: WBC and PBC modalities have similar global responses on muscle performance, soreness, and markers of muscle damage.
Kilohertz-frequency alternating current is used to minimize muscle atrophy and muscle weakness and improve muscle performance. However, no systematic reviews have evaluated the best Kilohertz-frequency alternating current parameters for this purpose. We investigated the effects of the carrier frequency, burst duty cycles, and burst durations on evoked torque, perceived discomfort, and muscle fatigue. A search of eight data sources by two independent reviewers resulted in 13 peer-reviewed studies being selected, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and rated using the PEDro scale to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Most studies showed that carrier frequencies up to 1 kHz evoked higher torque, while carrier frequencies between 2.5 and 5 kHz resulted in lower perceived discomfort. In addition, most studies showed that shorter burst duty cycles (10%–50%) induced higher evoked torque and lower perceived discomfort. Methodological quality scores ranged from 5 to 8 on the PEDro scale. We conclude that Kilohertz-frequency alternating current develops greater evoked torque for carrier frequencies between 1 and 2.5 kHz and burst duty cycles less than 50%. Lower perceived discomfort was generated using Kilohertz-frequency alternating currents between 2.5 and 5 kHz and burst duty cycles less than 50%.
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.