首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Low-Frequency Pulsed Current Versus Kilohertz-Frequency Alternating Current: A Scoping Literature Review
Authors:Marco Aurélio Vaz  Viviane Bortoluzzi Frasson
Institution:1. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, School of Physical Education, Physical Therapy and Dance, Exercise Research Laboratory, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil;2. Physique Physical Therapy Centre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Abstract:

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of low-frequency pulsed current versus kilohertz-frequency alternating current in terms of evoked force, discomfort level, current intensity, and muscle fatigability; to discuss the physiological mechanisms of each neuromuscular electrical stimulation type; and to determine if kilohertz-frequency alternating current is better than low-frequency pulsed current for clinical treatment.

Data Sources

Articles were obtained from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTSDiscus databases using the terms Russian current or kilohertz current or alternating current or pulsed current or Aussie current and torque or discomfort or fatigue or current intensity, and through citation tracking up to July 2017.

Study Selection

Two independent reviewers selected studies comparing the use of the 2 neuromuscular electrical stimulation currents. Studies describing maximal current intensity tolerated and the main effects of the 2 different current types on discomfort, muscle force, and fatigability were independently reviewed.

Data Extraction

Data were systematized according to (1) methodology; (2) electrical current characteristics; and (3) outcomes on discomfort level, evoked force, current intensity, and muscle fatigability.

Data Synthesis

The search revealed 15 articles comparing the 2 current types. Kilohertz-frequency alternated current generated equal or less force, similar discomfort, similar current intensity for maximal tolerated neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and more fatigue compared with low-frequency pulsed current. Similar submaximal levels of evoked force revealed higher discomfort and current intensity for kilohertz-frequency alternated current compared with low-frequency pulsed current.

Conclusions

Available evidence does not support the idea that kilohertz-frequency alternated current is better than low-frequency pulsed current for strength training and rehabilitation.
Keywords:Efficiency  Electric stimulation therapy  Muscle fatigue  Rehabilitation  Torque  BP  biphasic  MP  monophasic  MVIC  maximal voluntary isometric contraction  NMES  neuromuscular electrical stimulation  PEDro  Physiotherapy Evidence Database  VAS  visual analog scale
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号