Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Does neuromuscular electrical stimulation influence muscle recovery after maximal isokinetic exercise?
Vanderthommen M, Soltani K, Maquet D, Crielaard JM, Croisier JL
Isokinetics and Exercise Science 2007;15(2):143-149
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (ES) and passive recovery (PR) were compared in ten healthy men after a provocation exercise inducing delayed onset of muscle soreness (DOMS). The exercise consisted of 3 sets of 30 maximal eccentric contractions performed by the knee flexor muscles of the dominant leg on an isokinetic dynamometer at 61Y/s angular velocity. There was an interval of 8 weeks between both bouts and the order of the recovery mode (ES or PR) was block-randomly assigned. ES recovery consisted of a 25-mm continuous and non-tetanic (5 Hz) stimulation of the hamstring muscles. Concentric and eccentric hamstrings peak torques were evaluated before and immediately after the provocation exercise, after the recovery period, as well as 24 h (d1), 48 h (d2), 72 h (d3) and 168 h (d7) after the bout. Subjective perception of muscle soreness (VAS, 0 to 10 AU) was evaluated before exercise and at d1, d2, d3 and d7. To assess the CK activity, five blood samples were drawn before exercise and at d1, d2, d3 and d7. For both recovery modes, the greatest reductions in isokinetic muscle performances were measured on d2 (66.3 +/- 24.1% of initial values (ES) versus 57.4 +/- 26.5% (PR) for the concentric mode and 55.6 +/- 16% (ES) versus 53.1 +/- 19.3% (PR) for the eccentric mode). d2 also corresponded to the highest painful sensations (5.4 +/- 2.14 AU (ES) versus 6.15 +/- 2.55 AU (PR)). Peak activities of CK were reached on d3 (47507 +/- 19973 lU/l (ES) versus 75887 +/- 41962 lU/1 (PR)). Serum CK was lower with ES than PR at d3 (p <= 0.05) but all other parameters changed in a manner that was not statistically different between the two recovery protocols (p > 0.05). This strong trend could be explained by an electro-induced hyperperfusion that may efficiently wash out the muscle from the cellular debris resulting from the initial injury, and hence diminish the inflammatory response and the delayed amplification of tissue damages.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help