Shayan Bahadori1, Tikki Immins2, Thomas W Wainwright3. 1. Orthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth University, 6th Floor Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EB, UK. Electronic address: sbahadori@bournemouth.ac.uk. 2. Orthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth University, 6th Floor Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EB, UK. Electronic address: timmins@bournemouth.ac.uk. 3. Orthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth University, 6th Floor Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth BH8 8EB, UK. Electronic address: twainwright@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effectiveness of a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device and an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) device on enhancing microcirculatory blood flow in the thigh of healthy individuals, when stimulation is carried out peripherally at the calf. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blood microcirculation of ten healthy individuals was recorded using laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) technique. A region of interest (ROI) was marked on each participant thigh. The mean flux within the ROI was calculated at four states: rest, NMES device with visible muscle actuation (VMA), NMES device with no visible muscle actuation (NVMA) and IPC device. RESULTS: Both NMES and IPC devices increased blood flow in the thigh when stimulation was carried out peripherally at the calf. The NMES device increased mean blood perfusion from baseline by 399.8% at the VMA state and 150.6% at the NVMA state, IPC device increased the mean blood perfusion by 117.3% from baseline. CONCLUSION: The NMES device at VMA state increased microcirculation by more than a factor of 3 in contrast to the IPC device. Even at the NVMA state, the NMES device increased blood flow by 23% more than the IPC device. Given the association between increased microcirculation and reduced oedema, NMES may be a more effective modality than IPC at reducing oedema, therefore further research is needed to explore this.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effectiveness of a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device and an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) device on enhancing microcirculatory blood flow in the thigh of healthy individuals, when stimulation is carried out peripherally at the calf. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blood microcirculation of ten healthy individuals was recorded using laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) technique. A region of interest (ROI) was marked on each participant thigh. The mean flux within the ROI was calculated at four states: rest, NMES device with visible muscle actuation (VMA), NMES device with no visible muscle actuation (NVMA) and IPC device. RESULTS: Both NMES and IPC devices increased blood flow in the thigh when stimulation was carried out peripherally at the calf. The NMES device increased mean blood perfusion from baseline by 399.8% at the VMA state and 150.6% at the NVMA state, IPC device increased the mean blood perfusion by 117.3% from baseline. CONCLUSION: The NMES device at VMA state increased microcirculation by more than a factor of 3 in contrast to the IPC device. Even at the NVMA state, the NMES device increased blood flow by 23% more than the IPC device. Given the association between increased microcirculation and reduced oedema, NMES may be a more effective modality than IPC at reducing oedema, therefore further research is needed to explore this.
Authors: Miriam Viviane Baron; Paulo Eugênio Silva; Janine Koepp; Janete de Souza Urbanetto; Andres Felipe Mantilla Santamaria; Michele Paula Dos Santos; Marcus Vinicius de Mello Pinto; Cristine Brandenburg; Isabel Cristina Reinheimer; Sonia Carvalho; Mário Bernardes Wagner; Thomas Miliou; Carlos Eduardo Poli-de-Figueiredo; Bartira Ercília Pinheiro da Costa Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 10.318
Authors: Wen Xie; Max A Levine; Shahid Aquil; Katharine Pacoli; Rafid Al-Ogaili; Patrick P Luke; Alp Sener Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Elisa Benito-Martínez; Diego Senovilla-Herguedas; Julio César de la Torre-Montero; María Jesús Martínez-Beltrán; María Mercedes Reguera-García; Beatriz Alonso-Cortés Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Roberto Barcala-Furelos; Alicia González-Represas; Ezequiel Rey; Alicia Martínez-Rodríguez; Anton Kalén; Olga Marques; Luís Rama Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Louise C Burgess; Lalitha Venugopalan; James Badger; Tamsyn Street; Gad Alon; Jonathan C Jarvis; Thomas W Wainwright; Tamara Everington; Paul Taylor; Ian D Swain Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 2.912