4.6 Article

Comparison of the Effect of Sensory-Level and Conventional Motor-Level Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulations on Quadriceps Strength After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Trial

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.05.005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare sensory-level neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and conventional motor-level NMES in patients after total knee arthroplasty. Design: Prospective randomized single-blind trial. Setting: Hospital total arthroplasty center: inpatients. Participants: Patients with osteoarthritis (N=66; mean age, 73.5 +/- 6.3y; 85% women) were randomized to receive either sensory-level NMES applied to the quadriceps (the sensory-level NMES group), motor-level NMES (the motor-level NMES group), or no stimulation (the control group) in addition to a standard rehabilitation program. Interventions: Each type of NMES was applied in 45-minute sessions, 5d/wk, for 2 weeks. Main Outcome Measures: Data for the quadriceps maximum voluntary isometric contraction, the leg skeletal muscle mass determined using multiple-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, the timed Up and Go test, the 2-minute walk test, the visual analog scale, and the range of motion of the knee were measured preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks after total knee arthroplasty. Results: The motor-level NMES (P=.001) and sensory-level NMES (P=.028) groups achieved better maximum voluntary isometric contraction results than did the control group. The motor-level NMES (P=.003) and sensory-level NMES (P=.046) groups achieved better 2-minute walk test results than did the control group. Some patients in the motor-level NMES group dropped out of the experiment because of discomfort. Conclusions: Motor-level NMES significantly improved muscle strength and functional performance more than did the standard program alone. Motor-level NMES was uncomfortable for some patients. Sensory-level NMES was comfortable and improved muscle strength and functional performance more than did the standard program alone. (C) 2017 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据