BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: This study examined magnitude and recovery of low-frequency fatigue (LFF) in the quadriceps after electrically stimulated contractions in spinal cord-injured (SCI) and able-bodied subjects. SUBJECTS: Nine SCI (ASIA A-C, levels C5-T9, injured 13.6 +/- 12.2 years) and 9 sedentary able-bodied subjects completed this study. METHODS: Fatigue was evoked in 1 thigh, and the nonfatigued leg served as a control. The fatigue test for able-bodied subjects lasted 15 minutes. For SCI, stimulation was adjusted so that the relative drop in force was matched to the able-bodied group. Force was assessed at 20 (P20) and 100 Hz (P100), and the ratio of P20/P100 was used to evaluate LFF in thighs immediately after, at 10, 20, and 60 minutes, and at 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours after a fatigue test. RESULTS: The magnitude of LFF (up to 1 hour after fatigue) was not different between able-bodied and patients with SCI. However, recovery of LFF over 24 hours was greater in able-bodied compared with patients with SCI in both the experimental (P < 0.001) and control legs (P < 0.001). The able-bodied group showed a gradual recovery of LFF over time in the experimental leg, whereas the SCI group did not. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that individuals with SCI are more susceptible to LFF than able-bodied subjects. In SCI, simply assessing LFF produced considerable LFF and accounted for a substantial portion of the response. We propose that muscle injury is causing the dramatic LFF in SCI, and future studies are needed to test whether "fatigue" in SCI is actually confounded by the effects of muscle injury.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: This study examined magnitude and recovery of low-frequency fatigue (LFF) in the quadriceps after electrically stimulated contractions in spinal cord-injured (SCI) and able-bodied subjects. SUBJECTS: Nine SCI (ASIA A-C, levels C5-T9, injured 13.6 +/- 12.2 years) and 9 sedentary able-bodied subjects completed this study. METHODS: Fatigue was evoked in 1 thigh, and the nonfatigued leg served as a control. The fatigue test for able-bodied subjects lasted 15 minutes. For SCI, stimulation was adjusted so that the relative drop in force was matched to the able-bodied group. Force was assessed at 20 (P20) and 100 Hz (P100), and the ratio of P20/P100 was used to evaluate LFF in thighs immediately after, at 10, 20, and 60 minutes, and at 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours after a fatigue test. RESULTS: The magnitude of LFF (up to 1 hour after fatigue) was not different between able-bodied and patients with SCI. However, recovery of LFF over 24 hours was greater in able-bodied compared with patients with SCI in both the experimental (P < 0.001) and control legs (P < 0.001). The able-bodied group showed a gradual recovery of LFF over time in the experimental leg, whereas the SCI group did not. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that individuals with SCI are more susceptible to LFF than able-bodied subjects. In SCI, simply assessing LFF produced considerable LFF and accounted for a substantial portion of the response. We propose that muscle injury is causing the dramatic LFF in SCI, and future studies are needed to test whether "fatigue" in SCI is actually confounded by the effects of muscle injury.
Authors: A LeBlanc; C Lin; L Shackelford; V Sinitsyn; H Evans; O Belichenko; B Schenkman; I Kozlovskaya; V Oganov; A Bakulin; T Hedrick; D Feeback Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2000-12
Authors: H L Gerrits; M T E Hopman; C Offringa; B G M Engelen; A J Sargeant; D A Jones; A Haan Journal: Pflugers Arch Date: 2003-01-14 Impact factor: 3.657
Authors: Ashraf S Gorgey; David R Dolbow; James D Dolbow; Refka K Khalil; David R Gater Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Morufu Olusola Ibitoye; Nur Azah Hamzaid; Nazirah Hasnan; Ahmad Khairi Abdul Wahab; Glen M Davis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240