Proximal and distal muscle thickness is different in women with patellofemoral pain but is not associated with knee frontal plane projection angle.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare proximal and distal muscle thickness between patellofemoral pain (PFP) and asymptomatic women (CG) and to verify the possible association between morphology and lower limb alignment during single leg-squat. METHODS: Thirty women (PFP, n = 15 and CG, n = 15) performed the following evaluations: (i) muscle thickness of external oblique (EO), gluteus medius (GMed), tensor fascia latae (TFL), peroneus (PER) and tibialis anterior (TA); (ii) knee frontal plane projection angle (FPPA) during single-leg squat. RESULTS: Compared with the CG, PFP showed: (1) smaller GMed (-10.02%; p = 0.04; effect size = 0.82), greater TFL (+18.44%; p = 0.02; effect size = 0.92) and PER (+14.23%; p = 0.02; effect size = 0.87) muscle thickness and greater knee FPPA during single-leg squat (+31.8%; p = 0.04; effect size = 1.12). No differences were observed in EO (+7.17%; p = 0.37; effect size = 0.34) and TA (-1.35%; p = 0.81; effect size = 0.12) muscle thickness. Additionally, we failed to observe significant associations between muscle morphology and knee FPPA in both groups. CONCLUSION: PFP patients showed alterations in proximal and distal muscle thickness, despite the lack of association with poor lower limb alignment. Prospective studies are necessary to determine if differences in muscle morphology are the cause or the consequence of PFP and to confirm the absence of relationship with lower limb alignment.

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.

Low-Frequency Pulsed Current Versus Kilohertz-Frequency Alternating Current: A Scoping Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of low-frequency pulsed current versus kilohertz-frequency alternating current in terms of evoked force, discomfort level, current intensity, and muscle fatigability; to discuss the physiological mechanisms of each neuromuscular electrical stimulation type; and to determine if kilohertz-frequency alternating current is better than low-frequency pulsed current for clinical treatment. DATA SOURCES: Articles were obtained from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTSDiscus databases using the terms Russian current or kilohertz current or alternating current or pulsed current or Aussie current and torque or discomfort or fatigue or current intensity, and through citation tracking up to July 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected studies comparing the use of the 2 neuromuscular electrical stimulation currents. Studies describing maximal current intensity tolerated and the main effects of the 2 different current types on discomfort, muscle force, and fatigability were independently reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were systematized according to (1) methodology; (2) electrical current characteristics; and (3) outcomes on discomfort level, evoked force, current intensity, and muscle fatigability. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search revealed 15 articles comparing the 2 current types. Kilohertz-frequency alternated current generated equal or less force, similar discomfort, similar current intensity for maximal tolerated neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and more fatigue compared with low-frequency pulsed current. Similar submaximal levels of evoked force revealed higher discomfort and current intensity for kilohertz-frequency alternated current compared with low-frequency pulsed current. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence does not support the idea that kilohertz-frequency alternated current is better than low-frequency pulsed current for strength training and rehabilitation.