No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective The aim of the study was to analyze the effects of pain education and the combined use of cryotherapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on the pain sensation, functional capacity, and quality of life of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Design This is a randomized controlled and blind clinical trial including patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain in the following 4 groups: control group, cryotherapy group, burst transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group, and cryotherapy combined with burst transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group. They were evaluated at baseline and after the protocol was concluded using the following: Roland-Morris questionnaire and sit-to-stand test; quality-of-life questionnaire; and pain. The protocol consisted of 10 sessions with pain education associated the combination of the electrophysical agents. Results There were no statistical differences between groups after the intervention protocol. In the within analysis, all groups presented an improvement in visual analog scale scores, Roland-Morris questionnaire, sit-to-stand test, and pain domain of quality-of-life questionnaire. Conclusions This study showed that with pain education, there was no difference between cryotherapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone, combined, or placebo mode in improving pain, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

Objectives: To compare the short- and long-term effects of low load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) versus low- (LL-RT) or high-load (HL-RT) resistance training with free blood flow on myoelectric activity, and investigate the differences between failure and non-failure protocols. Data Source: We identified sources by searching the MEDLINE/PUBMED, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, and PEDro electronic databases. Study Selection: We screened titles and abstracts of 1048 articles using our inclusion criteria. A total of 39 articles were selected for further analysis. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study and extracted data from studies. A meta-analytic approach was used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)). Subgroup analyses were conducted for both failure or non-failure protocols. Data Synthesis: The search identified n = 39 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Regarding the short-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during non-failure exercises (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88), whereas HL-RT increased muscle excitability compared with LL-BFR regardless of voluntary failure (SMD −0.61, 95% CI −1.01 to 0.21) or not (SMD −1.13, CI −1.94 to −0.33). Concerning the long-term effects, LL-BFR increased muscle excitability compared with LL-RT during exercises performed to failure (SMD 1.09, CI 0.39 to 1.79). Conclusions: Greater short-term muscle excitability levels are observed in LL-BFR than LL-RT during non-failure protocols. Conversely, greater muscle excitability is present during HL-RT compared with LL-BFR, regardless of volitional failure. Furthermore, LL-BFR performed to failure increases muscle excitability in the long-term compared with LL-RT.