Literature DB >> 3674268

Biomechanical comparison of stimulated and nonstimulated skeletal muscle pulled to failure.

W E Garrett1, M R Safran, A V Seaber, R R Glisson, B M Ribbeck.   

Abstract

We compared the biomechanical properties of passive and stimulated muscle rapidly lengthened to failure in an experimental animal model. The mechanical parameters compared were force to tear, change in length to tear, site of failure, and energy absorbed by the muscle-tendon unit before failure. Paired comparisons were made between 1) muscles stimulated at 64 Hz (tetanic stimulation) and passive (no stimulation) muscles, 2) muscles stimulated at 16 Hz (wave-summated stimulation) and passive muscles, and 3) muscles stimulated at 64 Hz and at 16 Hz. Both tetanically stimulated and wave-summation contracted muscles required a greater force to tear (at 64 Hz, 12.86 N more, P less than 0.0004; and at 16 Hz, 17.79 N more, P less than 0.003) than their nonstimulated controls, while there was no statistical difference in failure force between muscles stimulated at 16 Hz and 64 Hz. The energy absorbed was statistically greater for the stimulated muscles than for the passive muscles in Groups 1 and 2 (at 64 Hz, 100% more, P less than 0.0003; and 16 Hz, 88% more, P less than 0.0002). In Group 3, the tetanically contracted muscle-tendon units absorbed 18% more energy than the wave-summated stimulated muscles (P less than 0.01). All muscles tore at the distal musculotendinous junction, and there was no difference in the length increase at tear between muscles in each group. These findings may lead to enhanced understanding of the mechanism and physiology of muscle strain injuries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3674268     DOI: 10.1177/036354658701500504

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  44 in total

Review 1.  Muscle pain due to injury.

Authors:  A H Wheeler; G W Aaron
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2001-10

2.  Reliability of a device measuring triceps surae muscle fatigability.

Authors:  M Haber; E Golan; L Azoulay; S R Kahn; I Shrier
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 3.  Hamstring strain injuries: factors that lead to injury and re-injury.

Authors:  David A Opar; Morgan D Williams; Anthony J Shield
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 4.  [Muscle injuries: diagnostics and treatments].

Authors:  M Kieb; O Lorbach; M Engelhardt
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Acute muscle strain injuries: a proposed new classification system.

Authors:  Otto Chan; Angelo Del Buono; Thomas M Best; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Nordic hamstring exercise training alters knee joint kinematics and hamstring activation patterns in young men.

Authors:  Eamonn Delahunt; Mark McGroarty; Giuseppe De Vito; Massimiliano Ditroilo
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 7.  What are the risk factors for groin strain injury in sport? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Lorrie Maffey; Carolyn Emery
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 11.136

8.  Effects of a static stretching program on the incidence of lower extremity musculotendinous strains.

Authors:  K M Cross; T W Worrell
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Conceptual framework for strengthening exercises to prevent hamstring strains.

Authors:  Kenny Guex; Grégoire P Millet
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 11.136

10.  The influence of prior hamstring injury on lengthening muscle tissue mechanics.

Authors:  Amy Silder; Scott B Reeder; Darryl G Thelen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.