Search

Objective: To investigate the temperature changes in subcutaneous and intramuscular tissue during a 20-minute cold and hot-pack contrast therapy treatment. Design end Setting: Subjects were randomly exposed to 20 minutes of contrast therapy (5 minutes of heat with a hydrocollator pack followed by 5 minutes of cold with an ice pack, repeated twice) and 20 minutes of cold therapy (ice pack only) in a university laboratory. Subjects: Nine men and seven women with no history of peripheral vascular disease and no allergy to cephalexin hydrochloride volunteered for the study. Measurements: Subcutaneous and intramuscular tissue temperatures were measured by 26-gauge hypodermic needle microprobes inserted into the left calf just below the skin or 1 cm below the skin and subcutaneous fat, respectively. Results: With contrast therapy, muscular temperature did not fluctuate significantly over the 20-minute period compared with the subcutaneous temperature, which fluctuated from 8 degrees C to 14 degrees C each 5-minute interval. When subjects were treated with ice alone, muscle temperature decreased 7 degrees C and subcutaneous temperature decreased 17 degrees C over the 20-minute treatment. Conclusions: Our results show that contrast therapy has little effect on deep muscle temperature. Therefore, if most of the physiologic effects attributed to cold and hot contrast therapy depend on substantial fluctuations in tissue temperature, contrast therapy needs to be reconsidered as a viable therapeutic modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We investigated the effects of pulsed ultrasound on swelling, muscle soreness perception, relaxed-elbow extension angle, and muscular strength. Design and Setting: Eight sets of concentric and eccentric actions induced delayed-onset muscle soreness of the elbow flexors. Group 1 received 20% pulsed ultrasound treatments (1-MHz, 7 minutes, 1.5 W/cm2 temporal peak intensity) twice a day immediately after postexercise assessments and at 3, 24, 27, 48, 51, 72, and 75 hours postexercise. Group 2 received sham treatments immediately after postexercise assessments and at 3, 27, 51, and 75 hours postexercise and true treatments of pulsed ultrasound at 24, 48, and 72 hours postexercise. Group 3 received sham treatments of no ultrasonic output immediately after postexercise assessments and at 3, 24, 27, 48, 51, 72, and 75 hours postexercise. Subjects: Thirty-six college-age females. Measurements: We recorded upper-arm circumference, perceived soreness, relaxed-elbow extension angle, and elbow-flexion strength before (pretest), immediately postexercise, and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours postexercise. Results: We noted differences over time but no treatment effect between groups or interactions between time and group for upper-arm circumference, perceived soreness, relaxed-elbow extension angle, or elbow-flexion strength. Conclusions: Pulsed ultrasound as used in this study did not significantly diminish the effects of delayed-onset muscle soreness on soreness perception, swelling, relaxed-elbow extension angle, and strength. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Therapeutic ultrasound is an effective deep heating modality commonly applied alone or after cooling or heating of the treatment area. The purpose of this study was to examine the tissue temperature rise in the human triceps surae muscle group after ultrasound with prior heating via a silicate gel hot pack. Design and Setting: This study was designed as a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial with repeated measures on two factors (depth and time). Independent variables were temperature of pack (hot and room temperature), depth of measurement (1 cm and 3 cm), and time (beginning, after pack application, and after ultrasound). The dependent variable was tissue temperature. Subjects were assigned to one of two treatment groups: ultrasound preceded by a 15-minute hot pack treatment or ultrasound preceded by a 15-minute application with a silicate gel pack at room temperature. Measurements were taken while subjects were treated in a university training room. Subjects: Twenty-one uninjured male and female college student volunteers were randomly assigned to one of the two pack groups. Measurements: The hot packs were stored in 75 degrees C water. A 1-MHz ultrasound treatment was administered for 10 minutes at an intensity of 1.5 W/cm2 . Tissue temperature was measured every 30 seconds using 23-gauge hypodermic microprobes interfaced with a telethermometer and inserted 1 and 3 cm below the surface of anesthetized triceps surae muscle. Results: At both tissue depths, there was a 0.8 degrees C greater increase in tissue temperature with hot packs and ultrasound. At 1 cm, ultrasound increased temperature 3.5 degrees C after a 0.5 degrees C rise during the room temperature-pack application, but only 0.6 degrees C after a 3.8 degrees C increase during hot-pack application. At 3 cm, ultrasound increased temperature 3.85 degrees C following a slight (-0.26 degrees C) decrease during the room temperature-pack application and 3.68 degrees C after a 0.74 degrees C increase during hot-pack application. Conclusions: Vigorous increases in deep muscle temperature (>/= 4 degrees C) can be reached with 2 to 3 minutes less total sonation time when preheated with a hot pack. Thus, ultrasound and hot packs have an additive effect on intramuscular temperature, but the characteristics of the additive effect are different, primarily because there appears to be a tissue temperature plateau. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We investigated three 30-minute high-volt pulsed current electrical stimulation (HVPC) treatments of 125 pps to reduce pain, restore range of motion (ROM), and recover strength loss associated with delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS). Design and Setting: Randomized, masked comparison of three 30-minute treatment and sham HVPC regimens over a 48-hour period. Subjects: Twenty-eight college students. Measurements: Subjects performed concentric and eccentric knee extensions with the right leg to induce muscle soreness. Assessments were made before and after the exercise bout and each treatment at 24, 48, and 72 hours postexercise. Results: Three separate 2 x 3 x 2 ANOVAs were used to determine significant differences (p < .05) between days, treatments, and pre-post treatment effects and significant interaction among these variables. Scheffe post hoc tests showed no significant reduction in pain perception or improvement in loss of function at 24, 48, and 72 hours postexercise. Mean pain perception assessments (0 = no pain, 10 = severe pain) for the HVPC group were 2.9, 4.5, and 3.5 and for the sham group 3.8, 4.8, and 3.5). Mean ROM losses for the HVPC group were 9.0 degrees, 22.3 degrees, and 26.2 degrees and for the sham group were 9.5 degrees, 23.1 degrees, and 23.0 degrees. Mean strength losses (1RM) for the HVPC group were 25.9, 25.7, and 20.8 lbs and for the sham group were 22.3, 22.3, and 13.8 lbs. Conclusions: HVPC as we studied it was ineffective in providing lasting pain reduction and at reducing ROM and strength losses associated with DOMS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]