RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of functional electric stimulation (FES) of lower limb muscles during 30 minutes of upright standing on the central and peripheral hemodynamic response in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: A repeated-measure design. Subjects were used as their own control and underwent 2 testing protocols of FES-augmented standing (active standing) and non-FES standing (passive standing). SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen individuals with SCI (7 with tetraplegia, 7 with paraplegia). INTERVENTIONS: During active standing, FES was administered to 4 muscle groups of each leg in an overlapping fashion to produce a pumping mechanism during standing. During passive standing, subjects stood for 30 minutes using a standing frame with no FES intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central hemodynamic responses of stroke volume, cardiac output, heart rate, arterial blood pressure, total peripheral resistance (TPR), and rate pressure product (RPP) were evaluated by impedance cardiography. All measurements were performed during supine and sitting positions before and after standing, and during 30 minutes of upright standing. RESULTS: Comparisons between the groups with paraplegia and tetraplegia showed a significant increase in heart rate in the paraplegics after 30 minutes of active standing. During active standing, paraplegics' heart rate increased by 18.2% (p = .015); during passive standing, it increased by 6% (p = .041). TPR in the tetraplegics significantly (p = .003) increased by 54% when compared with the paraplegics during passive standing. Overall, the tetraplegic group had a significantly lower systolic blood pressure (p = .013) and mean arterial pressure (p = .048) than the paraplegics during passive standing. These differences were not detected during active standing. When data were pooled from both groups and the overall groups response to active and passive standing were compared, the results showed that cardiac output, stroke volume, and blood pressure significantly decreased (p < .05) during 30 minutes of passive standing, whereas TPR significantly increased (p < .05). All of the hemodynamic variables were maintained during 30 minutes of active standing, and there were increases in RPP and heart rate after 30 minutes of active standing. CONCLUSION: FES of the lower extremity could be used by persons with SCI as an adjunct during standing to prevent orthostatic hypotension and circulatory hypokinesis. This effect may be more beneficial to those with tetraplegia who have a compromised autonomic nervous system and may not be able to adjust their hemodynamics to the change in position.
Asunto(s)
Circulación Sanguínea/fisiología , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Hipocinesia/prevención & control , Músculo Esquelético/fisiopatología , Traumatismos de la Médula Espinal/rehabilitación , Adulto , Análisis de Varianza , Femenino , Hemodinámica/fisiología , Humanos , Hipocinesia/etiología , Hipotensión Ortostática/etiología , Hipotensión Ortostática/prevención & control , Pierna , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Paraplejía/fisiopatología , Paraplejía/rehabilitación , Postura , Cuadriplejía/fisiopatología , Cuadriplejía/rehabilitación , Centros de Rehabilitación , Traumatismos de la Médula Espinal/complicaciones , Traumatismos de la Médula Espinal/fisiopatología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the pain response after phonophoresis (PH) differs from the pain response after ultrasound (US) alone. METHODS: Forty-nine subjects with soft tissue injuries including epicondylitis, tendinitis, and tenosynovitis were randomly assigned (double blinded technique) to PH or US treatment groups. Both groups received 8 min of continuous US at 1.5 w x cm(-2), three times per week for 3 wk. For the PH group a gel containing 0.05% fluocinonide was used as a coupling agent. An identical gel absent the steroid was used for the US group. Subjects indicated their pain level by marking on a visual analog scale (VAS) at the start of treatment and at the end of weeks 1, 2, and 3. Pressure algometry was used to note tolerance to direct pressure over the target tissue. ANOVA for repeated measures was used to analyze data. RESULTS: At the end of 3 wk of treatment, both groups combined showed a significant decrease in pain level and an increase in pressure tolerance (P < 0.05), but there were no differences between groups from the onset of treatment to the end of week 3 (VAS: US 5.5-1.9, PH 5.0-2.0; algometry (involved limb): US 4.7 lb-7.1 lb, PH 5.1 lb-6.6 lb). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that US results in decreased pain and increased pressure tolerance in these selected soft tissue injuries. The addition of PH with fluocinonide does not augment the benefits of US used alone.