4.6 Review

Low-Frequency Pulsed Current Versus Kilohertz-Frequency Alternating Current: A Scoping Literature Review

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 99, Issue 4, Pages 792-805

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.001

Keywords

Efficiency; Electric stimulation therapy; Muscle fatigue; Rehabilitation; Torque

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [311421/2016-4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of low-frequency pulsed current versus kilohertz-frequency alternating current in terms of evoked force, discomfort level, current intensity, and muscle fatigability; to discuss the physiological mechanisms of each neuromuscular electrical stimulation type; and to determine if kilohertz-frequency alternating current is better than low-frequency pulsed current for clinical treatment. Data Sources: Articles were obtained from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTSDiscus databases using the terms Russian current or kilohertz current or alternating current or pulsed current or Aussie current and torque or discomfort or fatigue or current intensity, and through citation tracking up to July 2017. Study Selection: Two independent reviewers selected studies comparing the use of the 2 neuromuscular electrical stimulation currents. Studies describing maximal current intensity tolerated and the main effects of the 2 different current types on discomfort, muscle force, and fatigability were independently reviewed. Data Extraction: Data were systematized according to (1) methodology; (2) electrical current characteristics; and (3) outcomes on discomfort level, evoked force, current intensity, and muscle fatigability. Data Synthesis: The search revealed 15 articles comparing the 2 current types. Kilohertz-frequency alternated current generated equal or less force, similar discomfort, similar current intensity for maximal tolerated neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and more fatigue compared with low-frequency pulsed current. Similar submaximal levels of evoked force revealed higher discomfort and current intensity for kilohertz-frequency alternated current compared with low-frequency pulsed current. Conclusions: Available evidence does not support the idea that kilohertz-frequency alternated current is better than low-frequency pulsed current for strength training and rehabilitation. (C) 2017 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available