CONTEXT: Cryotherapy is the application of cold as a treatment. It is widely used and accepted as beneficial in early management of soft tissue injury. However, the most efficient cryotherapeutic agent remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare 4 common cryotherapeutic agents including crushed ice (CI), gel pack (GP), frozen peas (FP), and ice-water immersion (WI) and to determine which agent provided the greatest cooling efficiency after a 20-minute application. DESIGN: Repeated-measures design. SETTING: University physiology laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Nine healthy volunteers participated (5 males, 4 females; age = 24.0 +/- 4.6 years, height = 1.73 +/- 0.24 m, mass = 79.9 +/- 24.1 kg). INTERVENTION(S): The CI, GP, FP, and WI were applied to the right ankle for 20 minutes. Participants were required to attend 1 measurement session for each agent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We recorded skin surface temperature of the right ankle at a sampling rate of 1 image/min, using a thermal imaging camera during a 30-minute rewarming period. RESULTS: Application of CI produced a significantly greater reduction in skin surface temperature (19.56 +/- 3.78 degrees C) than GP (13.19 +/- 5.07 degrees C) and FP (14.59 +/- 4.22 degrees C) ( P < .001). The CI and WI demonstrated significantly ( P < .001) greater cooling efficiency than GP and FP. CONCLUSIONS: The CI and WI had the greatest cooling efficiency and sustained decreased skin surface temperatures postapplication, indicating these agents are potentially the most clinically beneficial.
CONTEXT: Cryotherapy is the application of cold as a treatment. It is widely used and accepted as beneficial in early management of soft tissue injury. However, the most efficient cryotherapeutic agent remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare 4 common cryotherapeutic agents including crushed ice (CI), gel pack (GP), frozen peas (FP), and ice-water immersion (WI) and to determine which agent provided the greatest cooling efficiency after a 20-minute application. DESIGN: Repeated-measures design. SETTING: University physiology laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Nine healthy volunteers participated (5 males, 4 females; age = 24.0 +/- 4.6 years, height = 1.73 +/- 0.24 m, mass = 79.9 +/- 24.1 kg). INTERVENTION(S): The CI, GP, FP, and WI were applied to the right ankle for 20 minutes. Participants were required to attend 1 measurement session for each agent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We recorded skin surface temperature of the right ankle at a sampling rate of 1 image/min, using a thermal imaging camera during a 30-minute rewarming period. RESULTS: Application of CI produced a significantly greater reduction in skin surface temperature (19.56 +/- 3.78 degrees C) than GP (13.19 +/- 5.07 degrees C) and FP (14.59 +/- 4.22 degrees C) ( P < .001). The CI and WI demonstrated significantly ( P < .001) greater cooling efficiency than GP and FP. CONCLUSIONS: The CI and WI had the greatest cooling efficiency and sustained decreased skin surface temperatures postapplication, indicating these agents are potentially the most clinically beneficial.