Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Callaghan, M. J
Right arrow Articles by Winstanley, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Callaghan, M. J
Right arrow Articles by Winstanley, J.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Joint Disorders
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

A comparison of two types of electrical stimulation of the quadriceps in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome. A pilot study

Michael J Callaghan

Jacqueline A Oldham

Julie Winstanley

Centre for Rehabilitation Science, University of Manchester, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK

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.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 15, No. 6, 637-646 (2001)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215501cr457oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




Advertisement