Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Callaghan et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: