Adam S Lepley1, Nael O Bahhur, Amanda M Murray, Brian G Pietrosimone. 1. Musculoskeletal Health and Movement Science Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH, 43606-3390, USA, Adam.Lepley@rockets.utoledo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Deficits in quadriceps strength and voluntary activation are common following knee injury. These deficits are hypothesized to generate from a neural level, however, it remains unclear how corticomotor pathways are affected following acute injury. The purpose of this investigation was to examine whether corticomotor alterations of the quadriceps were present following a simulated knee joint injury using an experimental effusion model. METHODS: Participants completed two testing sessions, an experimental knee effusion and control session, separated by 7 days. The central activation ratio was used to assess change in quadriceps activation. Corticomotor excitability was assessed pre- and post-intervention via active motor thresholds (AMTs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) normalized to maximal muscle responses. MEPs were assessed at different percentages of AMT, and associated slopes between these percentages were analysed. Paired-sample t tests were performed on percentage change scores calculated from pre-intervention outcome measures to assess change in corticomotor excitability and changes in the slope of MEP values as percentage of AMT increased. RESULTS:Quadriceps activation significantly decreased during the effusion session. AMT and MEP change scores were not different between effusion and control conditions. No substantial differences were found in slope between any percentages of AMT. CONCLUSIONS: An experimental knee effusion did not induce changes in corticomotor excitability. Further research is needed to understand how corticomotor pathways are affected following joint injury. Corticomotor excitability alterations may not be the cause of acute changes in neuromuscular activation following joint effusion. Future research should determine whether clinically altering corticomotor excitability will improve physical function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Deficits in quadriceps strength and voluntary activation are common following knee injury. These deficits are hypothesized to generate from a neural level, however, it remains unclear how corticomotor pathways are affected following acute injury. The purpose of this investigation was to examine whether corticomotor alterations of the quadriceps were present following a simulated knee joint injury using an experimental effusion model. METHODS:Participants completed two testing sessions, an experimental knee effusion and control session, separated by 7 days. The central activation ratio was used to assess change in quadriceps activation. Corticomotor excitability was assessed pre- and post-intervention via active motor thresholds (AMTs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) normalized to maximal muscle responses. MEPs were assessed at different percentages of AMT, and associated slopes between these percentages were analysed. Paired-sample t tests were performed on percentage change scores calculated from pre-intervention outcome measures to assess change in corticomotor excitability and changes in the slope of MEP values as percentage of AMT increased. RESULTS: Quadriceps activation significantly decreased during the effusion session. AMT and MEP change scores were not different between effusion and control conditions. No substantial differences were found in slope between any percentages of AMT. CONCLUSIONS: An experimental knee effusion did not induce changes in corticomotor excitability. Further research is needed to understand how corticomotor pathways are affected following joint injury. Corticomotor excitability alterations may not be the cause of acute changes in neuromuscular activation following joint effusion. Future research should determine whether clinically altering corticomotor excitability will improve physical function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Michael R Torry; Michael J Decker; Peter J Millett; J Richard Steadman; William I Sterett Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Grant E Norte; Brian G Pietrosimone; Joseph M Hart; Jay Hertel; Christopher D Ingersoll Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Michael R Borich; Kristina D Prochaska; Shannon L Mundfrom; Ariel E Perkins; Joseph M Poepping Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Brittney A Luc; Adam S Lepley; Michael A Tevald; Phillip A Gribble; Donald B White; Brian G Pietrosimone Journal: J Sport Rehabil Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: Brian G Pietrosimone; Adam S Lepley; Hayley M Ericksen; Amy Clements; David H Sohn; Phillip A Gribble Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Brian J Loyd; Scott K Stackhouse; Craig Hogan; Michael R Dayton; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Andrew J Kittelson Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Adam S Lepley; Dustin R Grooms; Julie P Burland; Steven M Davi; Jeffrey M Kinsella-Shaw; Lindsey K Lepley Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Steven M Davi; Adam S Lepley; Craig R Denegar; Lindsay J DiStefano; Corey M Edgar; Lindsey K Lepley Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Brian J Loyd; Scott Stackhouse; Michael Dayton; Craig Hogan; Michael Bade; Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Knee Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Julie P Burland; Adam S Lepley; Marc Cormier; Lindsay J DiStefano; Robert Arciero; Lindsey K Lepley Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 11.136