| Literature DB >> 12377105 |
Tim Hideaki Tanaka1, Gerry Leisman, Hidetoshi Mori, Kazushi Nishijo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is not enough evidence to support the efficacy of massage for muscle fatigue despite wide utilization of the modality in various clinical settings. This study investigated the influence of massage application on localized back muscle fatigue.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2002 PMID: 12377105 PMCID: PMC134459 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-2-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Figure 1Study Design
Description of the Intervention
| INTERVENTION | |
| Rest | The subject rested on the treatment table in the prone position for 5 minutes. |
| Massage | Effleurage, kneading and compression techniques were applied to the lumbar and sacrum region for 5 minutes. The massage lotion was used as a form of lubricant. The massage treatment was provided by the three registered massage therapists in Ontario. All therapists have completed a minimum of 2200 hours professional training and have written the licensing board examination. Their experience ranges from 2–8 years. |
Figure 2Experimental Procedure
Summary of Analysis of EMG Measures (N = 29)
| Source | Squared MNF | MDF | Logarithm of RMS | |
| Muscle (M) | 1 | 2.85 | 0.01 | 4.70* |
| Time (T) | 9 | 100.71*** | 104.65*** | 12.00*** |
| Intervention (IV) × T | 9 | 2.17* | 1.16 | 0.72 |
| IV × T × O | 9 | 0.65 | 1.70 | 2.48* |
| M × T × O | 9 | 1.08 | 1.97* | 0.83 |
| S × T | 9 | 7.73*** | 7.03*** | 9.93*** |
| S × T × O | 9 | 3.17** | 3.63*** | 1.62 |
Note. MNF – measure was scaled by division by 100, and squared due to a left-skewed distribution. RMS – measure was scaled by multiplying by 10,000, and transformed by taking its natural logarithm due to having a right-skewed distribution. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Summary of Changes in EMG – Measurements (N = 29)
| Squares of MNF | MDF | Logarithm of RMS | ||||||
| Before | After | |||||||
| Time of Measurement (sec.) | ||||||||
| 2 – 4 | 2.25 | 0.62 | 84.97 | 20.98 | 1.17 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.92 |
| 4 – 6 | 2.33 | 0.60 | 89.57 | 20.12 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.68 | 0.92 |
| 6 – 8 | 2.32 | 0.58 | 89.12 | 18.96 | 0.67 | 0.81 | 0.63 | 0.92 |
| 8 – 10 | 2.30 | 0.58 | 88.18 | 18.64 | 0.65 | 0.79 | 0.66 | 0.88 |
| 10 – 12 | 2.26 | 0.57 | 87.04 | 18.74 | 0.67 | 0.80 | 0.68 | 0.94 |
| 80 – 82 | 1.69 | 0.48 | 68.06 | 15.14 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 1.04 | 0.99 |
| 82 – 84 | 1.68 | 0.47 | 67.15 | 15.09 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 1.11 | 1.02 |
| 84 – 86 | 1.66 | 0.48 | 67.17 | 15.33 | 0.86 | 0.95 | 1.05 | 0.96 |
| 86 – 88 | 1.66 | 0.49 | 66.75 | 15.96 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 1.07 | 1.06 |
| 88 – 90 | 1.64 | 0.46 | 66.60 | 14.90 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 1.05 | 0.95 |
Note. MNF – measure was scaled by division by 100, and squared due to a left-skewed distribution. RMS – measure was scaled by multiplying by 10,000, and transformed by taking its natural logarithm due to having a right-skewed distribution.
Summary of Differences in EMG-Measurement Changes Dependent on Intervention for Squared MNF (N = 29)
| Massage | Rest | |||
| Time of Measurement (sec.) | ||||
| 2 – 4 | 2.31 | 0.7 | 2.19 | 0.64 |
| 4 – 6 | 2.39 | 0.64 | 2.28 | 0.59 |
| 6 – 8 | 2.38 | 0.64 | 2.25 | 0.59 |
| 8 – 10 | 2.35 | 0.64 | 2.25 | 0.54 |
| 10 – 12 | 2.30 | 0.64 | 2.22 | 0.59 |
| 80 – 82 | 1.69 | 0.54 | 1.69 | 0.48 |
| 82 – 84 | 1.69 | 0.48 | 1.66 | 0.48 |
| 84 – 86 | 1.69 | 0.54 | 1.63 | 0.48 |
| 86 – 88 | 1.68 | 0.54 | 1.63 | 0.48 |
| 88 – 90 | 1.65 | 0.54 | 1.62 | 0.48 |
Note. MNF – measure was scaled by division by 100, and squared due to a left-skewed distribution.
Figure 3Mean EMG Frequency (Squared) by Time
Figure 4Median EMG Frequency by Time
Figure 5Logarithm of RMS EMG by Time
Summary of Visual Analogue Scale (N = 29)
| Comparison Measure | Compared Measure | ||||
| Comparison | |||||
| After Massage to Before Massage | 5.97 | 2.45 | 5.64 | 2.73 | 0.75 |
| After Rest to Before Rest | 6.01 | 2.23 | 6.87 | 1.88 | 3.03** |
| Change in VAS with Massage to Change in VAS with Rest | 0.86 | 1.53 | -0.32 | 2.34 | 2.69* |
Note. All paired t – tests have 28 degrees of freedom. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.