RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hip and knee flexion joint motions are frequently examined in clinical practice using camera based motion capture (CBMC) systems; however, these systems require elaborate setups and dedicated space. Inertial measurement unit (IMU) based systems avoid these disadvantages but require validation before widespread adoption. Moreover, it is important for clinical practice to determine the stability of these systems for prolonged evaluation periods. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a three-sensor inertial measurement unit system for calculating hip and knee flexion angles during gait by comparing with a gold standard CBMC system. Validity was also examined before and after a treadmill walking session. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants were tested. Twenty seconds of gait at preferred walking speed were analyzed before and after thirty-two minutes of treadmill walking using previously validated CBMC methods and with a custom IMU model. Measurement validity for the IMU system was evaluated using Bland & Altman 95 percent limits of agreement, linear regression, mean absolute error and root mean square error. The effects of a measurement zeroing calibration strategy were also investigated. RESULTS: Strong measurement agreement was observed for both hip and knee flexion angles, although overall agreement for the hip exceeded that for the knee. Linear regressions between the datasets for each participant illustrated strong (> 0.94) relationships between IMU and CBMC measurements. More significant changes between timepoints were observed for the knee than for the hip. Error values were generally reduced when zeroing calibration was implemented. CONCLUSION: The IMU system presented in this study is a convenient and accessible technique to measure joint angles. The protocol described in the current study can be easily applied in the clinical setting for evaluation of clinical populations. Additional development work on sensor placement and calibration methods may further increase the accuracy of such methods. Clinical translation statement: The IMU system presented in this study is a convenient and accessible technique to measure joint angles. Additional developmentwork on sensor placement and calibration methods may further increase the accuracy of such methods.
Assuntos
Marcha , Articulação do Joelho , Humanos , Rotação , Fenômenos Biomecânicos , JoelhoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Compare acute muscular responses to unilateral, bilateral, and alternating blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise. METHODS: Maximal strength was tested on visit one. On visits 2-4, 2-10 days apart, 19 participants completed 4 sets of knee extensions (30% one-repetition maximum) with BFR (40% arterial occlusion pressure) to momentary failure (inability to lift load) using each muscle action (counterbalanced order). Ultrasound muscle thickness was measured at 60% and 70% of the anterior thigh before (Pre), immediately (Post-0), and 5 min (Post-5) after exercise. Surface electromyography and tissue deoxygenation were measured throughout. Results, presented as means, were analyzed with a three-way (sex by time by condition) Bayesian RMANOVA. RESULTS: There was a time by sex interaction (BFinclusion: 5.489) for left leg 60% muscle thickness (cm). However, changes from Pre to Post-0 (males: 0.39 vs females: 0.26; BF10: 0.839), Post-0 to Post-5 (males: - 0.05 vs females: - 0.06; BF10: 0.456), and Pre to Post-5 (males: 0.34 vs females: 0.20; BF10: 0.935) did not differ across sex. For electromyography (%MVC), there was a sex by condition interaction (BFinclusion: 550.472) with alternating having higher muscle excitation for females (16) than males (9; BF10: 5.097). Tissue deoxygenation (e.g. channel 1, µM) increased more for males (sets 1: 11.17; 2: 2.91; 3: 3.69; 4: 3.38) than females (sets 1: 4.49; 2: 0.24; 3: - 0.10; 4: - 0.06) from beginning to end of sets (all BFinclusion ≥ 4.295e + 7). For repetitions, there was an interaction (BFinclusion: 17.533), with alternating completing more than bilateral and unilateral for set one (100; 56; 50, respectively) and two (34; 16; 18, respectively). CONCLUSION: Alternating, bilateral, and unilateral BFR exercise elicit similar acute muscular responses.
Assuntos
Exercício Físico/fisiologia , Força Muscular/fisiologia , Músculo Esquelético/irrigação sanguínea , Fluxo Sanguíneo Regional/fisiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Terapia de Restrição de Fluxo Sanguíneo/métodos , Eletromiografia/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Contração Muscular/fisiologia , Músculo Esquelético/fisiologia , Treinamento Resistido/métodos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
AIM: Blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise is a common alternative to traditional high-load resistance exercise used to increase muscle size and strength. Some populations utilizing BFR at a low load may wish to limit their cardiovascular response to exercise. Different contraction patterns may attenuate the cardiovascular response, but this has not been compared using BFR. PURPOSE: To compare the cardiovascular response to unilateral (UNI), bilateral (BIL), and alternating (ALT) BFR exercise contraction patterns. METHODS: Twenty healthy participants performed four sets (30 s rest) of knee extensions to failure, using 30% one-repetition maximum, 40% arterial occlusion pressure, and each of the three contraction patterns (on different days, at the same time of day, separated by 2-10 days, randomized). Cardiovascular responses, presented as pre- to post-exercise mean changes (SD), were measured using pulse wave analysis and analyzed with Bayesian RMANOVA. RESULTS: ALT caused greater changes in: aortic systolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 21(8); UNI = 13(11); BIL = 15(8); BF10 = 29.599], diastolic [ΔmmHg: ALT = 13(8); UNI = 7(11); BIL = 8(8); BF10 = 5.175], and mean arterial [ΔmmHg: ALT = 19(8); UNI = 11(11); BIL = 13(7); BF10 = 48.637] blood pressures. Aortic [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 4945(2340); UNI = 3294(1408); BIL = 3428 (1461); BF10 = 113.659] and brachial [ΔmmHg bpm: ALT = 6134(2761); UNI = 4300(1709); BIL = 4487(1701); BF10 = 31.845] rate pressure products, as well as heart rate [Δbpm: ALT = 26(14); UNI = 19(8); BIL = 19(11); BF10 = 5.829] were greatest with ALT. Augmentation index [Δ%: UNI = -6(13); BIL = - 7(11); ALT = - 5(16); BF10 = 0.155] and wave reflection magnitude [Δ%: UNI = - 5(9); BIL = - 4(7); ALT = - 4(7); BF10 = 0.150] were not different. CONCLUSION: Those at risk of a cardiovascular event may choose unilateral or bilateral BFR exercise over alternating until further work determines the degree to which it can be tolerated.
Assuntos
Pressão Sanguínea , Precondicionamento Isquêmico/métodos , Músculo Esquelético/fisiologia , Treinamento Resistido/métodos , Adulto , Bandagens Compressivas , Tolerância ao Exercício , Feminino , Humanos , Precondicionamento Isquêmico/efeitos adversos , Precondicionamento Isquêmico/instrumentação , Perna (Membro)/irrigação sanguínea , Perna (Membro)/fisiologia , Masculino , Contração Muscular , Músculo Esquelético/irrigação sanguínea , Distribuição Aleatória , Fluxo Sanguíneo Regional , Treinamento Resistido/efeitos adversosRESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the acute effects of passive movement combined with blood flow restriction (PM + BFR) to passive movement (PM) or blood flow restriction alone (BFR). METHODS: A total of 20 healthy participants completed: time control (TC), PM, BFR and PM + BFR (one per leg, over 2 days; randomized). For PM, a dynamometer moved the leg through 3 sets of 15 knee extensions/flexions (90° at 45°/second). For BFR, a cuff was inflated to 80% arterial occlusion pressure on the upper leg. Measurements consisted of anterior muscle thickness at 60% and 70% of the upper leg before and after (-0, -5 and -10 min) conditions, ratings of perceived effort and discomfort before conditions and after each set, and of the vastus lateralis during conditions. Data, presented as mean (SD), were compared using Bayesian RMANOVA, except for perceived effort and discomfort, which were compared using a Friedman's test (non-parametric). RESULTS: 60% (Δcm before-after-0: TC = 0.04 [0.09], PM = -0.01 [0.15], BFR = 0.00 [0.11], PM + BFR = 0.01 [0.22]) and 70% (Δcm before-after-0: TC = 0.01 [0.09], PM = -0.01 [0.15], BFR = 0.02 [0.11], PM + BFR = -0.03 [0.22]) muscle thickness did not change. Perceived effort was greater than TC following PM (p = .05) and PM + BFR (p = .001). Perceived discomfort was greater following BFR and PM + BFR compared to TC (all p ≤ .002) and PM (all p ≤ .010). Changes in deoxygenation (e.g. channel 1; ΔµM start set 1-end set 3: TC = 0.9 [1.2], PM = -1.2 [1.9], BFR = 10.3 [2.7], PM + BFR = 10.3 [3.0]) were generally greater with BFR and PM + BFR (BFinclusion = 1.210e + 13). CONCLUSION: Acute muscular responses to PM + BFR are not augmented over the effect of BFR alone.