M J Callaghan1, J A Oldham, J Winstanley. 1. Centre for Rehabilitation Science, University of Manchester, Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK. michael.callaghan@man.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare a commercially available electrical muscle stimulation regime with a new form of stimulation for the rehabilitation of the quadriceps in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. SETTING: A research facility within a teaching hospital. METHODS:Sixteen patients (four men, 12 women) with patellofemoral pain, demonstrable quadriceps atrophy, but normal gait parameters were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups. One group received a sequential mixed frequency stimulation pattern from a standard device. The other group received a new form of stimulation from an experimental stimulation device that contained simultaneous mixed frequency components. OUTCOME MEASURES: Isometric and isokinetic extension torque, muscle fatigue rate, pain, functional questionnaire, step test, knee flexion, and quadriceps cross-sectional area. RESULTS: These showed significant improvements for both groups after treatment (p < 0.05) in all outcome measures except flexion and fatigue rates, but no significant differences between the two stimulation regimes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both stimulators performed similarly on patients with patellofemoral pain giving significant improvements for all patients for muscle strength, pain, self-reporting function and step testing. There were no significant differences between the two types of stimulation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare a commercially available electrical muscle stimulation regime with a new form of stimulation for the rehabilitation of the quadriceps in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. SETTING: A research facility within a teaching hospital. METHODS: Sixteen patients (four men, 12 women) with patellofemoral pain, demonstrable quadriceps atrophy, but normal gait parameters were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups. One group received a sequential mixed frequency stimulation pattern from a standard device. The other group received a new form of stimulation from an experimental stimulation device that contained simultaneous mixed frequency components. OUTCOME MEASURES: Isometric and isokinetic extension torque, muscle fatigue rate, pain, functional questionnaire, step test, knee flexion, and quadriceps cross-sectional area. RESULTS: These showed significant improvements for both groups after treatment (p < 0.05) in all outcome measures except flexion and fatigue rates, but no significant differences between the two stimulation regimes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both stimulators performed similarly on patients with patellofemoral pain giving significant improvements for all patients for muscle strength, pain, self-reporting function and step testing. There were no significant differences between the two types of stimulation.
Authors: Ethne L Nussbaum; Pamela Houghton; Joseph Anthony; Sandy Rennie; Barbara L Shay; Alison M Hoens Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Ana Luiza C Martimbianco; Maria Regina Torloni; Brenda Ng Andriolo; Gustavo Jm Porfírio; Rachel Riera Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-12-12
Authors: Neal R Glaviano; Ashley N Marshall; L Colby Mangum; Joseph M Hart; Jay Hertel; Shawn Russell; Susan A Saliba Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Lori A Bolgla; Michelle C Boling; Kimberly L Mace; Michael J DiStefano; Donald C Fithian; Christopher M Powers Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.860