Stimulation of Shank Muscles During Functional Electrical Stimulation Cycling Increases Ankle Excursion in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury

Fornusek, Ché; Davis, Glen M.; Baek, Il-Hun

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.05.012

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, cycling speed and the achievement rate of cycling speed of 0.6m/s or higher of the stimulation muscle group QD were both higher than those of the group Q. Although stimulation to the dorsiflexor muscles did not show significant differences in the parameters relating to cycling speed in this paper, other studies showed usefulness of stimulation to the shank muscles [26], [27]. Further studies would be required for effective stimulation control of the ankle dorsiflexors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 42%

Comparison of Muscle Stimulation Groups for Simplified Practical FES Cycling Control with Cycling Wheelchair: An Experimental Test with Healthy Subjects

Watanabe

Karasawa

2016

IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe cycling wheelchair "Profhand" was developed in Japan as locomotion and lower limb rehabilitation device for hemiplegic subjects and elderly persons. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) control of paralyzed lower limbs enables application of the Profhand to paraplegic subjects as a rehabilitation device. In this paper, simplified muscle stimulation control for FES cycling with Profhand was examined for practical application, because cycling speed was low and not stable in our preliminary study and there was a difficulty in setting stimulation electrodes for the gluteus maximus. First, a guideline of target cycling speed to be achieved by FES cycling was determined from voluntary cycling with healthy subjects in order to evaluate FES cycling control. The cycling speed of 0.6m/s was determined as acceptable value and 1.0m/s was as ideal one. Then, stimulation to the gluteus maximus and that to the dorsiflexor muscles in addition to the quadriceps femoris were examined for simple FES cycling control for Profhand with healthy subjects. Stimulation timing was adjusted automatically during cycling based on muscle response time to electrical stimulation and cycling speed, which was shown to be effective for FES cycling control. Simple FES cycling control with Profhand removing stimulation to the gluteus maximus was found to be feasible. Stimulation to the dorsiflexor muscles with the quadriceps femoris was suggested to be effective for practical, simple FES cycling with Profhand in case of removing the gluteus maximus stimulation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 42%

Comparison of Muscle Stimulation Groups for Simplified Practical FES Cycling Control with Cycling Wheelchair: An Experimental Test with Healthy Subjects

Watanabe

Karasawa

2016

IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings suggested that free-ankle FES-evoked cycling produced greater ankle joint ROM than fixed-ankle joint ROM across each slice of 20° crank angle intervals, with the pedal spindle attached to the top middle part of the foot. The combination of shank muscle stimulation and freeing the ankle joint movement was reported to potentially improve ankle flexibility 33 , for therapeutic benefits and hopefully provide a competitive FES-evoked cycling advantage through the PO increment 42 . Even though the use of AFO in the present study has been proved to limit the ankle dorsi- and plantarflexion movement during fixed-ankle FES-evoked cycling, it was however useful to provide shank stability to individuals with SCI that restricts leg movements in the sagittal plane 27 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Theoretically, the power produced during FES-evoked cycling can be improved by up to 14% by releasing the ankle joint and adding the stimulation of shank muscles (triceps surae and tibialis anterior), only with the tuning of the contact point between the foot and pedal to the relative strength of the ankle plantar flexors of the triceps surae compared to the fixed-ankle joint 32 . Fornusek et al 33 reported that freeing the ankle joint during FES-evoked cycling was found to be safe. The combination of shank muscle stimulation and freeing the ankle joint movement may improve ankle flexibility 33 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fornusek et al 33 reported that freeing the ankle joint during FES-evoked cycling was found to be safe. The combination of shank muscle stimulation and freeing the ankle joint movement may improve ankle flexibility 33 . However, to date, no studies have experimentally investigated the effect of releasing the ankle joint on power production during FES-evoked cycling in persons with SCI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of releasing ankle joint during electrically evoked cycling in persons with motor complete spinal cord injury

Hamdan,

Hamzaid,

Hasnan

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Literature has shown that simulated power production during conventional functional electrical stimulation (FES) cycling was improved by 14% by releasing the ankle joint from a fixed ankle setup and with the stimulation of the tibialis anterior and triceps surae. This study aims to investigate the effect of releasing the ankle joint on the pedal power production during FES cycling in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Seven persons with motor complete SCI participated in this study. All participants performed 1 min of fixed-ankle and 1 min of free-ankle FES cycling with two stimulation modes. In mode 1 participants performed FES-evoked cycling with the stimulation of quadriceps and hamstring muscles only (QH stimulation), while Mode 2 had stimulation of quadriceps, hamstring, tibialis anterior, and triceps surae muscles (QHT stimulation). The order of each trial was randomized in each participant. Free-ankle FES cycling offered greater ankle plantar- and dorsiflexion movement at specific slices of 20° crank angle intervals compared to fixed-ankle. There were significant differences in the mean and peak normalized pedal power outputs (POs) [F(1,500) = 14.03, p < 0.01 and F(1,500) = 7.111, p = 0.008, respectively] between fixed- and free-ankle QH stimulation, and fixed- and free-ankle QHT stimulation. Fixed-ankle QHT stimulation elevated the peak normalized pedal PO by 14.5% more than free-ankle QH stimulation. Releasing the ankle joint while providing no stimulation to the triceps surae and tibialis anterior reduces power output. The findings of this study suggest that QHT stimulation is necessary during free-ankle FES cycling to maintain power production as fixed-ankle.

show abstract

“…It has been demonstrated that electrical and magnetic neural stimulation techniques are potential tools for use in the management of patients with this condition (2,3). The stimulation of leg and gluteal muscles during functional electrical stimulation cycling increases ankle excursion in individuals with spinal cord injury (4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in FABP1 and gastrin receptor expression in the testes of rats that have undergone electrical injury

Huang

Liu

2015

Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Testicular trauma may occur due to accidental electrical injury. The aim of this study was to investigate alterations in the levels of fatty acid-binding protein 1 (FABP1) and gastrin receptor (gastrin R) in the testes following electrical injury. Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into control, fatal electrocution (220 V, 50 Hz, 60 sec) and electrical injury (220 V, 50 Hz, 60 sec) groups (n=8 per group). The animals in the fatal electrocution and electrical injury groups were deeply anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital prior to each treatment, in which the current was delivered via an anode connected to the left foreleg and a cathode to the right hindleg. The rats that survived were subsequently sacrificed by cervical dislocation. Control animals received cervical dislocation alone. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed to evaluate the protein expression of FABP1 and gastrin R in the testes. Sections were evaluated by digital image analysis. The expression levels of FABP1 and gastrin R were significantly increased following electrical injury, supported by an increase in the integrated optical density (IOD) when compared with that in the control group (P<0.05). However, no significant difference was found in FABP1 and gastrin R expression levels between the fatal electrocution and control groups. In summary, the protein expression levels of FABP1 and gastrin R were found to be significantly altered by electrical injury, suggesting that these two proteins may be important in underlying mechanisms of testicular injury during electrical injury. The findings indicate that such alterations would be reflected in abnormal testicular function.

show abstract

Stimulation of Shank Muscles During Functional Electrical Stimulation Cycling Increases Ankle Excursion in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury

Cited by 14 publications

References 32 publications

Comparison of Muscle Stimulation Groups for Simplified Practical FES Cycling Control with Cycling Wheelchair: An Experimental Test with Healthy Subjects

Comparison of Muscle Stimulation Groups for Simplified Practical FES Cycling Control with Cycling Wheelchair: An Experimental Test with Healthy Subjects

Effects of releasing ankle joint during electrically evoked cycling in persons with motor complete spinal cord injury

Changes in FABP1 and gastrin receptor expression in the testes of rats that have undergone electrical injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About