| Literature DB >> 31745246 |
Fransiska M Bossuyt1,2, Michael L Boninger3,4,5,6, Ann Cools7,8, Nathan Hogaboom9,10, Inge Eriks-Hoogland11, Ursina Arnet12,13.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31745246 PMCID: PMC7065940 DOI: 10.1038/s41393-019-0376-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Spinal Cord ISSN: 1362-4393 Impact factor: 2.772
Figure 1:Figure adjusted from Ref (9): Timeline of the assessments taken in the biomechanical laboratory including (1) introduction, self-reported participant’s characteristics and measurements of the shoulder Range of Motion (RoM), (2) pre-fatigue ultrasound exams, (3) preparation phase including a test to define individual drag force and familiarization with treadmill propulsion and figure-8 protocol, (4) three maximum push tests and a maximum 15m overground sprint test (5) passive rest phase including completion of the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD), (6) treadmill propulsion at two different conditions (25Watt (W) and 45W), (7) Figure-8 protocol consisting of overground wheelchair propulsion along an 8-shaped course. Instructions given during each boat were standardized – the detailed course is presented in the figure below the timeline, and (8) post-fatigue ultrasound exams. Only results of participant characteristics, ultrasound exams, PASIPD, and heart rate and rate of perceived exertion at 25W and 45W treadmill propulsion are discussed in this manuscript.
Figure 2:Position and example images of ultrasound measurements. Each type of measurements represents a different example participant and does not relate to the person of the position images. (A) Acromio-humeral distance images were taken in a seated position with 90° elbow flexion with the thumb facing upwards. (B) Longitudinal images of long head of biceps brachii tendon were taken in a seated position with 90° elbow flexion and the hand palm facing upwards. (C) Transverse ultrasound images of supraspinatus tendon were taken in a seated position with the palm placed on the lower back, shoulder extended, and the elbow flexed posteriorly (B) The region of interest (ROI) is presented between the red vertical lines with the upper border and lower border of the tendons marked with the manually identified green horizontal lines. Lines are marked thicker as compared to the actual analysis for visualization reasons. ROI is selected based on the interference pattern that resulted from a metal marker taped to the skin (assigned with arrows).
Subject and lesion characteristics for the total sample and by group (no-fatigue vs fatigue) and sex (males vs females)
| Total (n=50) | No-fatigue group (n=25) | Fatigue group (n=25) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males (n=18) | Females (n=7) | Males (n=21) | Females (n=4) | ||
| Sex (% male) | 78 | 72 | 84 | ||
| Cause injury (% traumatic) | 92 | 94 | 85 | 91 | 100 |
| Completeness lesion (% incomplete) | 78 | 89 | 71 | 76 | 50 |
| Lesion level (%) | |||||
| T2-T6 | 40 | 56 | 0 | 43 | 25 |
| T7-T12 | 44 | 22 | 86 | 52 | 25 |
| L1-L2 | 16 | 22 | 14 | 5 | 50 |
| Age (years) | 50.5 (9.7) | 49.3 (12.1) | 52.3 (8.6) | 50.6 (8.8) | 52.3 (5.3) |
| Height (cm) | 173.7 (7.9) | 173.4 (5.8)* | 178.5 (6.6)* | ||
| Weight (kg) | 72.4 (13.3) | 72.7 (13.4) | 77.3 (10.3)* | 70 (15.9) | |
| Weight wheelchair (kg) | 14.4 (2.3) | 14.4 (2.7) | 14.8 (2.7) | 14.2 (1.8) | 14.6 (2.4) |
| Time since injury (years) | 26.6 (11.6) | 28.2 (13.3) | 35.7 (8.2) | 23.4 (9.3) | 20.4 (12.1) |
| Year at injury (years) | 23.9 (10.1) | 21.1 (9.7) | 16.6 (5.8) | 27.2 (9.8) | 31.9 (8.5) |
| Activity levels (MET) | 18.9 (12.9) | 21.0 (12.1) | 16.2 (9.3) | 18.8 (14.9) | 14.7 (13.2) |
NOTE. Significant p-values (α = 0.05) (*) corrected for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni) represent comparison of each group (male non-fatigued, male fatigued, female non-fatigued and female fatigued). The bold values are significantly different from values marked with *.
Unadjusted mean (standard deviation) and difference (diff) adjusted to all co-variables for quantitative ultrasound supraspinatus and biceps tendon measures (QUS). Intraclass correlations (ICC) for each measure were reported.
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QUS measure | Tendon | n | Pre | Post | Diff | ||
| ICC | ICC | ||||||
| Thickness (mm) | Supraspinatus | 50 | 5.39 (1.00) | 0.94 | 5.25 (1.11) | 0.95 | |
| Biceps | 49 | 4.21 (1.27) | 0.96 | 4.21 (1.25) | 0.97 | −0.60 | |
| Echo ratio | Supraspinatus | 49 | 1.73 (0.71) | 0.85 | 1.73 (0.71) | 0.93 | 0.26 |
| Biceps | 48 | 1.41 (0.56) | 0.88 | 1.34 (0.52) | 0.73 | −0.23 | |
| Contrast | Supraspinatus | 50 | 3.72 (0.90) | 0.73 | 3.66 (0.98) | 0.64 | 1.01 |
| Biceps | 48 | 4.83 (1.51) | 0.67 | 4.60 (1.68) | 0.78 | 0.51 | |
NOTE. Significant p-values (α = 0.05) are marked with *
Figure 3:Change in supraspinatus thickness (mm) after fatiguing wheelchair propulsion in females and males who fatigued and those who did not fatigue: predictive margins with 95 % confidence intervals.
Figure 4:Association between A: change in supraspinatus tendon thickness (mm) after fatiguing wheelchair propulsion and body weight (kg) and B: change in biceps tendon thickness (mm) after fatiguing wheelchair propulsion and AHD (cm) (p < 0.05).