Simultaneous ice and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation decrease anterior knee pain during running but do not affect running kinematics or associated muscle inhibition

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Sunku Kwon ◽  
Dustin A. Bruening ◽  
Steven J. Morrin ◽  
Dillon M. Kunz ◽  
J. Ty Hopkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Anterior Knee Pain ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Muscle Inhibition ◽  
Anterior Knee

Inhibition of the Quadriceps Muscles in Patients with Anterior Knee Pain

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 360-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther Suter ◽  
Walter Herzog ◽  
Kelly De Souza ◽  
Robert Bray
Keyword(s):  
Knee Pain ◽  
Anterior Knee Pain ◽  
Knee Injury ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Knee Extensor ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Muscle Inhibition ◽  
History Of ◽  
Anterior Knee

The present study was aimed at determining muscle inhibition (MI) and knee extensor moments in 42 subjects with unilateral anterior knee pain syndrome. The results were compared to a normal, healthy population with no history of knee injury. Also, the effects of 1 week of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) on MI and knee extensor moments were tested in a randomized controlled trial. At baseline, the involved leg showed significantly higher MI than the noninvolved leg. In both legs, MI was significantly higher and knee extensor moments lower than the corresponding values of the nonimpaired subjects. There was a direct relationship between knee pain during testing and the extent of MI. Higher MI, in turn, was associated with lower knee extensor moments. The study demonstrated significant MI in the quadriceps muscles of the involved and noninvolved legs of subjects with unilateral anterior knee pain syndrome. The results indicate that the noninvolved leg cannot be considered a normal control for a contralateral injury. NSAIDs did not affect MI or knee extensor moments, despite significantly reducing pain. This finding suggests that factors other than pain are responsible for the MI observed in this specific subject population, or that after removal of pain, more time is required to fully restore muscle function.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS OF MANUAL TRACTION IN COMPARISON TO ELECTROTHERAPY (TRANSCUTANEOUS ELECTRICAL NERVE STIMULATION - TENS) IN THE TREATMENT OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Sunny Kumar ◽  
M. Usman Khan ◽  
Qurat ul Ain Adnan
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Knee Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Session Key ◽  
Key Words Knee ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Manual Traction

OBJECTIVE To determine the effects of manual traction in knee arthritis patients in comparison to electrotherapy (TENS). STUDY DESIGN Randomized Control Trial (Experimental Study). STUDY SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS Study was conducted in a Tertiary Care Hospital with a sample of 310 participants. INTERVENTIONS Manual traction and Electrotherapy Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) will be used to manage pain in patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. OUTCOME MEASURES Oxford Knee Pain Scale was used to measure pain and functional activities. RESULTS Improvements were seen in both groups but results of manual traction were more significant. There were major differences present in knee pain intensity before and after treatment. The group that received manual traction reported a decrease in the severity of pain of mean 15.01 which is comparatively better than the group that received electro therapy and reported a decrease in severity of pain of mean 12.42. CONCLUSION The result of this research supports the application of manual TF joint traction as a mean of stretching shortened articular and periarticular tissues with decreased in levels of pain either during the treatment or at the end of session. There is significant improvement in knee flexion AROM. Pain level decreases during every treatment session. KEY WORDS Knee Pain, Traction, Mobilization, Tibio-Femoral Joint, TENS, Knee OA.

Understanding Athletic Trainers’ Knowledge, Intervention, and Barriers Toward Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Justin L. Rush ◽  
David A. Sherman ◽  
David M. Bazett-Jones ◽  
Christopher D. Ingersoll ◽  
Grant E. Norte
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Athletic Trainers ◽  
Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Muscle Inhibition ◽  
Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition

Context: Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) is a common neurophysiological response to joint injury. While athletic trainers (ATs) are constantly treating patients with AMI, it is unclear how clinicians are using the available evidence to treat the condition. Objective: To investigate ATs’ general knowledge, clinical practice, and barriers for treating AMI. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was utilized. The survey was distributed to a random sample of 3000 ATs from the National Athletic Trainers’ Association and through social media. 143 board certified ATs (age: 34.6 [10.3] y; experience: 11.7 [9.8] y) from various clinical settings and educational backgrounds were included in the analysis. Results: One hundred one respondents were able to correctly identify the definition of AMI. The majority of these respondents correctly reported that joint effusion (n = 95, 94.1%) and abnormal activity from joint receptors (n = 91, 90.1%) resulted in AMI. Of the 101 respondents, only 58 (57.4%) reported using disinhibitory interventions to treat AMI. The most frequently used evidence supported interventions were transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (n = 38, 65.5%), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 33, 56.9%), and focal joint cooling (n = 25, 43.1%). The interventions used correctly most often based on current evidence were neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 29/33, 87.9%) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (n = 26/38, 68.4%). Overall, difficulty quantifying AMI (n = 62, 61.24%) and lack of education (n = 71, 76.2%) were most frequently perceived as barriers. Respondents that did not use disinhibitory interventions perceived lack of experience treating AMI, understanding the terminology, and access to therapeutic modalities more often than the respondents that reported using disinhibitory interventions. Conclusion: Further education about concepts and treatment about AMI is warranted for ATs. Continued understanding of ATs’ clinical practice in regard to AMI may help identify gaps in athletic training clinical education.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document