| Literature DB >> 30418167 |
Gi Young Park1, Dong Rak Kwon1, Yong Suk Moon2.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the intensity-specific regenerative effects of microcurrent therapy on gastrocnemius muscle atrophy induced by cast-immobilization in rabbits. Fifteen rabbits were randomly allocated to 3 groups after cast removal: cast-immobilization and sham microcurrent therapy for 2 weeks (group 1); cast-immobilization and microcurrent therapy (25 μA) for 2 weeks (group 2); cast-immobilization and microcurrent therapy (5,000 μA) for 2 weeks (group 3). Clinical parameters [calf circumference, compound muscle action potential (CMAP) of the tibial nerve, thickness of gastrocnemius muscle], cross sectional area of gastrocnemius muscle fibres, and immunohistochemistry was evaluated. The clinical parameters representing mean atrophic changes in group 2 were significantly lower than those in group 3. The cross sectional area of the gastrocnemius muscle fibres and immunohistochemical parameters in group 2 were significantly greater than those in group 3. The results showed that low-intensity microcurrent therapy can more effectively promote regeneration in atrophied gastrocnemius muscle than high-intensity microcurrent therapy.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30418167 PMCID: PMC6352881 DOI: 10.7555/JBR.32.20180056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Res ISSN: 1674-8301
Comparison of clinical parameters among three groups
| Group | Atrophic change (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rt. calf muscle circumference | CMAP on Rt. tibial nerve | Rt. GCM muscle thickness on US | ||
| Group 1 ( | 33.68±1.09 a) | 30.90±1.01 a) | 32.98±1.44 a) | |
|
Group 2 ( | 15.28±1.55 b) | 13.40±0.45 b) | 13.30±0.43 b) | |
|
Group 3 ( | 18.16±0.40 c) | 14.10±0.27 c) | 14.10±0.59 c) | |
Values are presented mean±standard error. Group 1: IC for 2 weeks and sham MT for 2 weeks after CR; Group 2: IC for 2 weeks and MT (25 μA for 2 weeks after CR; Group 3: IC for 2 weeks and MT (5,000 μAfor 2 weeks after CR; IC: immobilization by cast; MT: microcurrent therapy; CR: cast removal; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; GCM: gastrocnemius muscle; US: ultrasound; a), b), c): Any two means in the same row with different letters represent a significant difference at P<0.05, One Way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey test.
Comparison of the cross sectional area among three groups
| Group | Rt. GCM type 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Medial | Lateral | |
| Group 1 ( | 260.46±17.86 a) | 262.51±14.31 a) |
|
Group 2 ( | 822.37±19.76 b) | 870.43±21.57 b) |
|
Group 3 ( | 675.11±16.91 c) | 684.06±32.80 c) |
Values are presented mean±standard error. Group 1: IC for 2 weeks and sham MT for 2 weeks after CR; Group 2: IC for 2 weeks and MT (25 μA for 2 weeks after CR; Group 3: IC for 2 weeks and MT (5,000 μAfor 2 weeks after CR; IC: immobilization by cast; MT: microcurrent therapy; CR: cast removal; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; GCM: gastrocnemius muscle; US: ultrasound; a), b), c): Any two means in the same row with different letters represent a significant difference at P<0.05, One Way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey test.
Comparison of PCNA and BrdU ratio in medial GCM and lateral GCM among three groups.
| Group | PCNA ratio | BrdU ratio | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medial GCM | Lateral GCM | Medial GCM | Lateral GCM | |
|
Group 1 ( | 0.070±0.018a) | 0.077±0.022a) | 0.050±0.014a) | 0.046±0.022a) |
|
Group 2 ( | 0.190±0.039b) | 0.189±0.045b) | 0.096±0.011b) | 0.090±0.009b) |
|
Group 3 ( | 0.145±0.024c) | 0.138±0.016c) | 0.075±0.015c) | 0.071±0014c) |
Values are presented mean±standard error. Group 1: IC for 2 weeks and sham MT for 2 weeks after CR; Group 2: IC for 2 weeks and MT (25 μA for 2 weeks after CR; Group 3: IC for 2 weeks and MT (5,000 μAfor 2 weeks after CR; IC: immobilization by cast; MT: microcurrent therapy; CR: cast removal; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; GCM: gastrocnemius muscle; US: ultrasound; a), b), c: Any two means in the same row with different letters represent a significant difference at P<0.05, One Way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey test.