Literature DB >> 23817534

Gluteal blood flow and oxygenation during electrical stimulation-induced muscle activation versus pressure relief movements in wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury.

C A J Smit1, M Zwinkels, T van Dijk, S de Groot, J M Stolwijk-Swuste, T W J Janssen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prolonged high ischial tuberosities pressure (IT pressure), decreased regional blood flow (BF) and oxygenation (%SO2) are risk factors for developing pressure ulcers (PUs) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Electrical stimulation (ES)-induced gluteal and hamstring muscle activation may improve pressure distribution by changing the shape of the buttocks while sitting and also increase BF and %SO2.
OBJECTIVE: To compare acute effects of ES-induced gluteal and hamstring muscle activation with pressure relief movements (PRMs) on IT pressure, BF and %SO2. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Twelve men with SCI performed PRMs - push-ups, bending forward and leaning sideward - and received surface ES (87±19 mA) to the gluteal and hamstring muscles while sitting in their wheelchair. Ischial tuberosities pressure was measured using a pressure mapping system; (sub)cutaneous BF and %SO2 were measured using reflection spectroscopy and laser Doppler, respectively.
RESULTS: Compared with rest (156±26 mm Hg), IT pressure was significantly lower during all other conditions (push-ups 19±44; bending forward 56±33; leaning sideward 44±38; ES 67±45 mm Hg). For the whole group, all PRMs significantly augmented BF (+39 to -96%) and %SO2 (+6.0 to -7.9%-point), whereas ES-induced muscle activation did only for peak BF. In all, 63% of the participants showed an increased BF (average 52%) with ES.
CONCLUSION: PRMs acutely reduced IT pressure and improved oxygenation and BF in SCI. The currently used ES method cannot replace PRMs, but it may be used additionally. ES-induced muscle activation is not as effective for acute pressure relief, but the frequency of stimulation is much higher than the performance of PRMs and can therefore be more effective in the long term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23817534     DOI: 10.1038/sc.2013.66

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spinal Cord        ISSN: 1362-4393            Impact factor:   2.772


  4 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of electrical stimulation for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment in people with spinal cord injuries.

Authors:  Liang Qin Liu; Julie Moody; Michael Traynor; Sue Dyson; Angela Gall
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 1.985

2.  Some people move it, move it… for pressure injury prevention.

Authors:  Sharon E Sonenblum; Stephen H Sprigle
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Electrical stimulation to prevent recurring pressure ulcers in individuals with a spinal cord injury compared to usual care: the Spinal Cord Injury PREssure VOLTage (SCI PREVOLT) study protocol.

Authors:  Boas J Wijker; Sonja de Groot; Johanna M van Dongen; Femke van Nassau; Jacinthe J E Adriaansen; Wendy J Achterberg-Warmer; Johan R Anema; Andries T Riedstra; Maurits W van Tulder; Thomas W J Janssen
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Feedback improves compliance of pressure relief activities in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Michèle Hubli; Roland Zemp; Urs Albisser; Franziska Camenzind; Olena Leonova; Armin Curt; William R Taylor
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 2.772

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.