Effect of lower extremity functional electrical stimulation pulsed isometric contractions on arm cycling peak oxygen uptake in spinal cord injured individuals.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1098Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) between: (i) functional electrical stimulation lower extremity pulsed isometric muscle contractions combined with arm cycling (FES iso hybrid), (ii) functional electrical stimulation cycling combined with arm cycling (FES hybrid cycling), and (iii) arm cycling exercise (ACE) in individuals with spinal cord injury with level of injury above and below T6. DESIGN: Cross-over repeated measures design. METHODS/PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with spinal cord injury (n_=_15) with level of injury between C4 and T12, were divided into groups; above (spinal cord injury - high, n_=_8) and below (spinal cord injury - low, n_=_7) T6 level. On separate days, VO2peak was compared between: (i) ACE, (ii) FES iso hybrid, and (iii) FES hybrid cycling. RESULTS: In the SCI-high group, FES iso hybrid increased VO2peak (17.6 (standard deviation (SD) 5.0) to 23.6 (SD 3.6) ml/kg/min; p_=_0.001) and ventilation (50.4 (SD 20.8) to 58.2 (SD 20.7) l/min; p_=_0.034) more than ACE. Furthermore, FES hybrid cycling resulted in a 6.8 ml/kg/min higher VO2peak (p_=_0.001) and an 11.0 litres/minute (p_=_0.001) higher ventilation. ACE peak workload was 10.5 W (p_=_0.001) higher during FES hybrid cycling compared with ACE. In the spinal cord injury - low group, no significant differences were found between the modalities. CONCLUSION: VO2peak increased when ACE was combined with FES iso hybrid or FES hybrid cycling in persons with spinal cord injury above the T6 level. Portable FES may serve as a less resource-demanding alternative to stationary FES cycling, and may have important implications for exercise prescription for spinal cord injury.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.