Impact of Varying the Parameters of Stimulation of 2 Commonly Used Waveforms on Muscle Force Production and Fatigue

Effect of Russian current expert modes on quadriceps muscle torque in healthy adults: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Russian current (RC), a well-known neuromuscular electrical stimulation operating at 2500 Hz, has demonstrated significant strength improvement over traditional exercises due to its high tolerance and low pain provocation. Despite extensive NMES parameter research, the specific effects of expert modes, particularly ON2 and Rest, remain unexplored. This study investigates the direct effect of these expert modes on quadriceps muscle strength in healthy adults.

METHODS

This is a single-blind, randomization-controlled trial. Forty-eight healthy university students (31 females, 17 males) were assigned in two randomized experimental groups either the ON2 or Rest mode for a 15-minute electrical stimulation session. Quadriceps maximum voluntary isokinetic contraction measurements were taken before and directly after RC application using Biodex Medical Systems 4 pro isokinetic dynamometer.

RESULTS

Both RC modes significantly increased the quadriceps muscle torque in healthy adults compared to baseline (p<0.05). Baseline mean torque was 123.28 (SD = 38.8), and post- RC mean torque was 136.67 (SD = 45.76). Deviation from normality was observed at baseline (p = 0.034) and persisted post-RC application (p = 0.017). The Wilcoxon test reported significant increases in quadriceps muscle knee torque for both ON2 and Rest groups (p < 0.001). The lack of ties in ranks and negative Z-values highlight the robustness of the observed effects.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study align with previous research on NMES and RC supporting the idea that electrical stimulation enhances muscle strength, selecting the appropriate RC expert modes can assist physiotherapist in tailoring rehabilitation program to achieve their specific strength goals.

Kilohertz Frequency Alternating Current Induces Less Evoked Torque and Less Neuromuscular Efficiency Than Pulsed Current in Healthy People: A Randomized Crossover Trial

CONTEXT

Pulsed current and kilohertz frequency alternating current are 2 types of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) currents often used by clinicians during rehabilitation. However, the low methodological quality and the different NMES parameters and protocols used in several studies might explain their inconclusive results in terms of their effects in the evoked torque and the discomfort level. In addition, the neuromuscular efficiency (ie, the NMES current type that evokes the highest torque with the lowest current intensity) has not been established yet. Therefore, our objective was to compare the evoked torque, current intensity, neuromuscular efficiency (evoked torque/current intensity ratio), and discomfort between pulsed current and kilohertz frequency alternating current in healthy people.

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized crossover trial.

METHODS

Thirty healthy men (23.2 [4.5] y) participated in the study. Each participant was randomized to 4 current settings: 2 kilohertz frequency alternating currents with 2.5 kHz of carrier frequency and similar pulse duration (0.4 ms) and burst frequency (100 Hz) but with different burst duty cycles (20% and 50%) and burst durations (2 and 5 ms); and 2 pulsed currents with similar pulse frequency (100 Hz) and different pulse duration (2 and 0.4 ms). The evoked torque, current intensity at the maximal tolerated intensity, neuromuscular efficiency, and discomfort level were evaluated.

RESULTS

Both pulsed currents generated higher evoked torque than the kilohertz frequency alternating currents, despite the similar between-currents discomfort levels. The 2 ms pulsed current showed lower current intensity and higher neuromuscular efficiency compared with both alternated currents and with the 0.4 ms pulsed current.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher evoked torque, higher neuromuscular efficiency, and similar discomfort of the 2 ms pulsed current compared with 2.5-kHz frequency alternating current suggests this current as the best choice for clinicians to use in NMES-based protocols.

Alternating Current Is More Fatigable Than Pulsed Current in People Who Are Healthy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

Tolerance level and rapid fatigue onset are limitations in the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) as an electrotherapeutic resource in rehabilitation and training protocols; however, it is unclear if pulsed current (PC) and alternating current (AC) produce different fatigue levels when applied at submaximal contraction level. The purpose of this study was to compare fatigue and discomfort levels between PC and AC during a submaximal contraction protocol in people who are healthy.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized crossover trial conducted in a laboratory setting, 30 male volunteers [23.23 years of age (SD = 4.59)] performed 2 submaximal fatigue protocols (with a 7-day interval) in a randomized order: PC (pulse duration = 2 milliseconds, pulse frequency = 100 Hz) and AC (2.5 kHz, pulse duration = 0.4 milliseconds, burst frequency = 100 Hz). NMES currents were applied to the knee extensor motor point of the dominant limb. The NMES protocol consisted of 80 evoked contractions (time on:off = 5:10 seconds) and lasted 20 minutes. The current was maintained at a constant intensity throughout the NMES protocol. The primary outcome measures were maximal voluntary isometric contraction, fatigue index (evoked torque decline), fatigability (number of contractions for a 50% drop in evoked-torque from the protocol start), total evoked torque-time integral (TTI), decline in TTI, and discomfort level.

RESULTS

AC at 2.5 kHz demonstrated higher maximal voluntary isometric contraction decline post-fatigue, higher fatigue index, higher fatigability (ie, fewer contractions to reach the 50% evoked torque decline from the protocol start), smaller total TTI, and higher TTI decline compared with PC. No between-currents difference was observed in discomfort level.

CONCLUSION

PC is less fatigable than AC at 2.5 kHz.

IMPACT

Based on this study, PC is the preferred current choice when the NMES goal is to generate higher muscle work, higher mechanical load, and smaller fatigability during training both for athletes who are healthy and for rehabilitation programs for people with disease or injury.

Comparison of the effects of kilohertz- and low-frequency electric stimulations: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether kilohertz-frequency alternating current (KFAC) is superior to low-frequency pulsed current (PC) in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort.

DATA SOURCES

The electronic databases PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for related articles, published before August 2017. Furthermore, citation search was performed on the original record using Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and within-subject repeated studies evaluating and comparing KFAC and PC treatments were included. The pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) of KFAC and PC treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated using the random effects model.

RESULTS

In total, 1148 potentially relevant articles were selected, of which 14 articles with within-subject repeated designs (271 participants, mean age: 26.4 years) met the inclusion criteria. KFAC did not significantly increase muscle-evoked torque, compared to PC (pooled SMD: -0.25; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.06; P = 0.120). KFAC had comparable discomfort compared to that experienced using PC (pooled SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.50, 0.38; P = 0.800). These estimates of the effects had a high risk of bias, as assessed using the Downs and Black scale, and were highly heterogeneous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis does not establish that KFAC is superior to PC in increasing muscle-evoked torque and lessening discomfort level. However, no strong conclusion could be drawn because of a high risk of bias and a large amount of heterogeneity. High quality studies comparing the efficacy between PC and KFAC treatments with consideration of potential confounders is warranted to facilitate the development of effective treatment.