| Literature DB >> 35923241 |
Liubov Amirova1, Maria Avdeeva2, Nikita Shishkin1, Anna Gudkova2, Alla Guekht2, Elena Tomilovskaya1.
Abstract
In this brief report, we present preliminary findings from a study of the use of electromyostimulation (EMS) in neurological patients. Assuming the approach to be sufficiently effective, we decided to investigate the motor system of elderly neurological patients before and after a course of Russian currents EMS, which were developed for Soviet athletes and cosmonauts. To this point, 19 patients-EMS (n = 11) and control (n = 8)-have successfully completed the study. The study included patients aged 60-90 years with confirmed walking and balance disorders with a history of chronic cerebral ischemia. Patients in the experimental group underwent a course of modulated EMS of the hip and shin muscles from 3 to 9 procedures. Preliminary results of the study showed good patient acceptance of EMS. After the course, the EMS group showed a significant improvement from baseline in the Tinetti Test (+1.4 points, p = 0.0045), Rivermead Mobility Index (+0.5 points, p = 0.0022), and Timed Up and Go Test (-1.2 s, p = 0.0053). There was also a significant improvement in balance quality of 8.6% (p = 0.04). Shin muscle strength, although trending positively, did not change significantly. There was also no change in hip and shin muscles' tone. No significant changes were observed in the control group in the same tests. It can be concluded that stimulation of the hip and shin muscles with Russian (Kotz) currents has a positive effect on the motor system of elderly neurological patients. Significant effects with a course of short duration indicate that this EMS regimen is promising.Entities:
Keywords: Russian currents; electromyostimulation; neurological patients; postural stability; timed up and go test
Year: 2022 PMID: 35923241 PMCID: PMC9339608 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.921434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.755
FIGURE 1Electromyostimulation protocol. General view of the Amplipulse-5DS stimulator (A), electrical signal parameters (B), electrode arrangement and order of stimulation of the lower limb segments (C).
FIGURE 2Main indicators from the Tinetti test. (A), Rivermead Mobility Index (B), Up and Go (C), Strength (D). Mean ± SEM. **p < 0.002 pre vs. post.
FIGURE 3Comparative data for length (A) and velocity (B) of the CoP and area of the statokinesiogram (C) in eyes open (shaded icons) and closed (not shaded icons), and also change in EQ (D) in the two patient groups. Mean ± SEM. # −p < 0.05 eyes open vs. eyes closed.at −p < 0.05 EMS vs. control.
Comparative table of the main parameters of skeletal muscle tone properties in two groups of patients.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| m. semitendinosus | ||||||
| EMS | 235,1 | 229,5 | 12,9 | 12,8 | 1,7 | 1,7 |
| Control | 249,6 | 236,3 | 14,2 |
| 1,5 | 1,6 |
| m. biceps femoris | ||||||
| EMS | 286,4 | 276,4 | 15,4 | 15,2 | 1,3 | 1,4 |
| Control | 278,9 | 280,9 | 15,7 | 15,2 | 1,4 | 1,4 |
| m. gastrocnemius lat | ||||||
| EMS | 282,4 | 290,8 | 14,5 | 15,5 | 1,5 | 1,4 |
| Control | 280,7 | 294,8 | 14,8 | 14,8 | 1,4 | 1,4 |
| m. gastrocnemius med | ||||||
| EMS | 273,2 | 267,5 | 15,5 | 13,1 | 1,6 | 1,6 |
| Control | 273,1 | 273,6 | 12,9 | 13,1 | 1,5 | 1,5 |
| m. rectus femoris | ||||||
| EMS | 270,6 | 277,6 | 13,4 | 13,9 | 1,5 | 1,4 |
| Control | 257,9 | 256,4 | 12,6 | 12,5 | 1,6 |
|
| m. soleus lat | ||||||
| EMS | 333,2 | 350,9 | 16,7 | 17,7 | 1,2 | 1,1 |
| Control |
| 391,6 |
| 19,7 |
|
|
| m. soleus med | ||||||
| EMS | 341,4 | 335,1 | 16,4 | 16,6 | 1,1 | 1,2 |
| Control | 371,9 | 372,3 | 18,0 | 17,3 | 1,0 | 1,0 |
| m. tibialis anterior | ||||||
| EMS | 387,5 | 393,9 | 19,4 | 19,5 | 0,9 | 0,9 |
| Control | 399,2 | 384,8 | 19,1 | 18,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 |
| m. vastus lat | ||||||
| EMS | 279,8 | 281,7 | 13,9 | 14,7 | 1,5 | 1,4 |
| Control | 259,2 | 253,9 | 12,8 | 13,4 | 1,7 | 1,5 |
−p < 0.05 EMS, vs. Control. *− p < 0.05 pre vs. post.