| Literature DB >> 34901282 |
Ana Carolina Coelho-Oliveira1,2,3,4, Ana Cristina Rodrigues Lacerda1,2,3, Ana Lúcia Cristino de Souza1, Luciana Martins de Mello Santos1,2,3, Sueli Ferreira da Fonseca1,3, Jousielle Márcia Dos Santos1,3, Vanessa Gonçalves César Ribeiro1,3, Hércules Ribeiro Leite1,2,3, Pedro Henrique Scheidt Figueiredo1,2,3, José Sebastião Cunha Fernandes5, Fábio Martins1,2,3, Renato Guilherme Trede Filho1,2,3, Mario Bernardo-Filho4, Danúbia da Cunha de Sá-Caputo4, Alessandro Sartorio6, Darryl Cochrane7, Vanessa Pereira Lima1,2,3, Henrique Silveira Costa1,2,3, Vanessa Amaral Mendonça1,2,3, Redha Taiar8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes progressive changes in the musculoskeletal system compromising neuromuscular control especially in the hands. Whole-body vibration (WBV) could be an alternative for the rehabilitation in this population. This study investigated the immediate effect of WBV while in the modified push-up position on neural ratio (NR) in a single session during handgrip strength (HS) in women with stable RA.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34901282 PMCID: PMC8660187 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9774980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow of participants through the study.
Figure 2Study design.
Figure 3Experimental intervention positions. (a) Control position and (b) push-up position adopted during sham or WBV exercise interventions.
Characteristics of participants.
| Characteristic ( | Mean (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 54 (48.99-59.01) |
| Body mass (kg) | 72.9 (66.98-78.82) |
| Height (m) | 1.59 (1.56-1.62) |
| BMI∗ (kg/m2) | 28.6 (26.69-30.51) |
| Diagnostic time (yr) | 8 (5.36-10.64) |
| Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h) | 24.8 (18.43-31.17) |
| SODA∗ | 106 (104.97-107.03) |
BMI∗: Body Mass Index; SODA∗: Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Figure 4Neural ratio at baseline and after the experimental interventions. ∗p < 0.05.
Effect of acute whole-body vibration exercise on handgrip strength, electromyographic records of the flexor digitorum superficialis muscle, and wrist range of motion (n = 21).
| Variable | Control | Sham | Vibration | Within-interventions | Between-interventions | Interaction | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Power |
|
|
| Power |
|
|
| Power | ||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Baseline (kg) | 20.03 (16.52-23.54) | 20.68 (17.29-24.07) | 19.38 (16.18-22.58) | 0.0014 | 13.70 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.3667 | 1.02 | 0.37 | 0.82 | 0.0178 | 4.24 | 0.73 | 0.99 |
| After (kg) | 20.45 (16.79-24.11) | 20.95 (17.40-24.50) | 21.77 (18.06-25.48)∗# | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Baseline (% rms) | 64.53 (57.77-71.29) | 62.82 (56.83-62.81) | 53.84 (46.93-60.79) | 0.1821 | 1.91 | 0.34 | 0.76 | 0.0002 | 9.29 | 0.87 | 1.00 | 0.7403 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 0.39 |
| After (% rms) | 62.86 (55.64-70.08) | 62.76 (56.81-68.71) | 48.92 (39.34-58.50)# | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Baseline (°) | 79.48 (75.70-83.26) | 77.71 (73.58-81.84) | 77.28 (73.36-81.20) | 0.0059 | 9.48 | 0.77 | 0.99 | 0.6424 | 0.44 | 0.22 | 0.49 | 0.0086 | 5.05 | 0.76 | 0.99 |
| After (°) | 77.67 (73.62-81.72) | 81.10 (77.17-85.03) | 81.57 (76.91-86.23)∗# | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||
| Baseline (°) | 49.00 (41.37-56.63) | 52.71 (44.50-60.92) | 50.10 (42.86-57.34) | 0.0064 | 9.28 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.0218 | 4.01 | 0.62 | 0.99 | 0.0404 | 3.34 | 0.58 | 0.99 |
| After (°) | 51.86 (46.19-57.53) | 53.95 (45.18-62.72) | 58.10 (51.85-64.35)∗# | ||||||||||||
HS: handgrip strength; EMGrms: electromyographic records; ROM: range of motion; whole-body vibration of 45 Hz/2 mm. Measures performed at baseline and after the experimental interventions. Data are presented as mean (95% confidence interval), F values, and eta partial η2. N = 21 subjects in each experimental test. ∗ represents the difference (p < 0.05) compared to baseline. # represents the difference (p < 0.05) between the interventions (after). There was no difference between the interventions at baseline.