Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/7000

Microcurrent treatment on pain, edema, and decreased muscle force associated with delayed onset muscle soreness: a double-blind, placebo, study

File Description SizeFormat 
uhm_ms_3797_uh.pdfVersion for UH users2.72 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
uhm_ms_3797_r.pdfVersion for non-UH users. Copying/Printing is not permitted2.72 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Item Summary

Title: Microcurrent treatment on pain, edema, and decreased muscle force associated with delayed onset muscle soreness: a double-blind, placebo, study
Authors: Hewlett, Kristi A.
Advisor: KImura, Iris
Issue Date: Aug 2003
Publisher: University of Hawaii at Manoa
Abstract: Study Design: A double-blind, placebo design (two-factor: group and time, with repeated measures over time) was used. The independent variables were three treatment groups: MENS pain, MENS healing, and MENS sham. The dependent variables were perceived pain, palpable tenderness, circumference, resting joint angle (biceps shortening), and biceps isometric force. Objective: To investigate the effect of two different microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulation (MENS) protocols on delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) of the biceps muscles. Background: Microcurrent treatment is gaining popularity for management of acute injuries; however, the effectiveness of this therapeutic modality remains questionable. Methods and Measures: Subjects were 60 volunteers (22.3 ± 3.6 years of age) without upper extremity pathology. DOMS was administered to the non-writing upper extremity of each subject via 15 sets of 15 repetitions of eccentric biceps muscle activity at 60°/sec with a 1 min. rest period between sets, using the Biodex Multi-Joint Sytem 3 dynamometer (Biodex 3). Subjects completed a pretest session (Phase I), which was critical for confirming the acquisition of DOMS symptoms. Following the completion of Phase I, subjects were given a nine week rest period before Phase II DOMS administration, data collection, and MENS treatments began. DOMS was administered during Phase II with the protocol established in Phase I. Subjects were randomly assigned to the MENS pain (n =18), MENS healing (n =22), or MENS sham (n =20) groups. All groups received 20 min. treatments for five consecutive days. MENS pain and MENS healing groups received 100-600 uA, 30 Hz, and positive polarity and 40 uA, 0.3 Hz and positive polarity microcurrent treatment, respectively. The dependent variables were assessed before DOMS administration and after treatment on day one, as well as pre and post treatment at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours following eccentric activity. Perceived pain was assed via a Visual Analogue Scale, palpable tenderness via a Model 75 force gauge probe, edema via circumference and resting joint angle (biceps shortening), and biceps isometric force via Biodex 3. Data were analyzed using ANOVAs with repeated measures and Newman-Keuls post hoc tests when main effects were revealed. Results: Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences between treatment groups for any of the dependent variables. Significant differences were indicated between treatment days. Perceived pain decreased between days 1 and 5, 2 and 5, and 3 and 5; palpable tenderness decreased between days 2 and 5; and biceps isometric force increased between days 1 and 5. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, MENS treatment (protocols for pain and healing) does not appear to be an effective treatment of DOMS.
Description: viii, 95 leaves
URI/DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/7000
Rights: All UHM dissertations and theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission from the copyright owner.
Appears in Collections:M.S. - Kinesiology and Leisure Science



Items in ScholarSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.