TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of two types of electrical stimulation of the quadriceps in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome.
AU - Callaghan, Michael
AU - Oldham, Jacqueline
AU - Winstanley, Julie
PY - 2001/12
Y1 - 2001/12
N2 - Objective
To compare a commercially available electrical muscle stimulation
regime with a new form of stimulation for the rehabilitation of the quadriceps
in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome.
Setting
A research facility within a teaching hospital.
Methods
Sixteen patients (four men, 12 women) with patellofemoral pain,
demonstrable quadriceps atrophy, but normal gait parameters were randomly
allocated to one of two treatment groups. One group received a sequential
mixed frequency stimulation pattern from a standard device. The other group
received a new form of stimulation from an experimental stimulation device
that contained simultaneous mixed frequency components.
Outcome measures
Isometric and isokinetic extension torque, muscle
fatigue rate, pain, functional questionnaire, step test, knee flexion, and
quadriceps cross-sectional area.
Results
These showed significant improvements for both groups after
treatment (p< 0.05) in all outcome measures except flexion and fatigue rates,
but no significant differences between the two stimulation regimes (p> 0.05).
Conclusion
Both stimulators performed similarly on patients with
patellofemoral pain giving significant improvements for all patients for
muscle strength, pain, self-reporting function and step testing. There were no
significant differences between the two types of stimulation.
AB - Objective
To compare a commercially available electrical muscle stimulation
regime with a new form of stimulation for the rehabilitation of the quadriceps
in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome.
Setting
A research facility within a teaching hospital.
Methods
Sixteen patients (four men, 12 women) with patellofemoral pain,
demonstrable quadriceps atrophy, but normal gait parameters were randomly
allocated to one of two treatment groups. One group received a sequential
mixed frequency stimulation pattern from a standard device. The other group
received a new form of stimulation from an experimental stimulation device
that contained simultaneous mixed frequency components.
Outcome measures
Isometric and isokinetic extension torque, muscle
fatigue rate, pain, functional questionnaire, step test, knee flexion, and
quadriceps cross-sectional area.
Results
These showed significant improvements for both groups after
treatment (p< 0.05) in all outcome measures except flexion and fatigue rates,
but no significant differences between the two stimulation regimes (p> 0.05).
Conclusion
Both stimulators performed similarly on patients with
patellofemoral pain giving significant improvements for all patients for
muscle strength, pain, self-reporting function and step testing. There were no
significant differences between the two types of stimulation.
M3 - Article
SN - 0269-2155
VL - 15
SP - 637
EP - 646
JO - Clinical Rehabilitation
JF - Clinical Rehabilitation
IS - 6
ER -