Method Article

Paradigms of Lower Extremity Electrical Stimulation Training After Spinal Cord Injury

DOI:

10.3791/57000

⸱

February 1st, 2018

 ,  ,  ,  , 
1Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders Service, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, 2Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Virginia Commonwealth University, 3Deceased, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Georgia, 4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

In This Article

Summary

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Spinal cord injury is a traumatic medical condition that may result in elevated risks of chronic secondary metabolic disorders. Here, we presented a protocol using surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation-resistance training in conjunction with functional electrical stimulation-lower extremities cycling as a strategy to ameliorate several of these medical problems.

Abstract

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Skeletal muscle atrophy, increased adiposity and reduced physical activity are key changes observed after spinal cord injury (SCI) and are associated with numerous cardiometabolic health consequences. These changes are likely to increase the risk of developing chronic secondary conditions and impact the quality of life in persons with SCI. Surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation evoked resistance training (NMES-RT) was developed as a strategy to attenuate the process of skeletal muscle atrophy, decrease ectopic adiposity, improve insulin sensitivity and enhance mitochondrial capacity. However, NMES-RT is limited to only a single muscle group. Involving multiple muscle groups of the lower extremities may maximize the health benefits of training. Functional electrical stimulation-lower extremity cycling (FES-LEC) allows for the activation of 6 muscle groups, which is likely to evoke greater metabolic and cardiovascular adaptation. Appropriate knowledge of the stimulation parameters is key to maximizing the outcomes of electrical stimulation training in persons with SCI. Adopting strategies for long-term use of NMES-RT and FES-LEC during rehabilitation may maintain the integrity of the musculoskeletal system, a pre-requisite for clinical trials aiming to restore walking after injury. The current manuscript presents a combined protocol using NMES-RT prior to FES-LEC. We hypothesize that muscles conditioned for 12 weeks prior to cycling will be capable of generating greater power, cycle against higher resistance and result in greater adaptation in persons with SCI.

Introduction

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

It is estimated that approximately 282,000 persons in the U.S. are currently living with spinal cord injury (SCI)1. On average, there are roughly 17,000 new cases annually, primarily caused by motor vehicle crashes, acts of violence, and sporting activities1. SCI results in partial or total interruption of neural transmission across and below the level of injury2, leading to sub-lesional sensory and/or motor loss. After injury, activity of skeletal muscle below the level of injury is greatly reduced, leading to a rapid decline in lean mass and concomitant infiltration of ectopic adipose tissue, or intramuscular fat (IMF). Studies have shown that lower extremity skeletal muscle experiences significant atrophy within the first few weeks of injury, continuing throughout the end of the first year3,4. As soon as 6 weeks post-injury, individuals with complete SCI experienced an 18-46% decrease in sub-lesional muscle size compared to age and weight-matched abled-bodied controls. By 24 weeks post-injury, skeletal muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) could be as low as 30 to 50%3. Gorgey and Dudley showed that skeletal muscle continues to atrophy by 43% of the original size 4.5 months post-injury and noted a three times greater amount of IMF in persons with incomplete SCI compared to abled-bodied controls4. Loss of metabolically active lean mass results in a reduction in basal metabolic rate (BMR)2,6, which accounts for ∼65-70% of the total daily energy expenditure; such reductions in BMR can lead to a detrimental energy imbalance and increasing adiposity after injury2,7,8,9,10,18. Heightened adiposity has been linked to the development of chronic secondary conditions including hypertension, type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease2,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. Moreover, persons with SCI may suffer from malnutrition and reliance on a high fat diet. Dietary fat intake may account for 29 to 34% of the fat mass in persons with SCI, which is likely a factor explaining increasing adiposity and the escalating prevalence of obesity within the SCI population12,13.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation evoked resistance training (NMES-RT) was designed to induce hypertrophy of paralyzed skeletal muscle19,20,21,22,23,24. Following twelve weeks of twice-weekly NMES-RT, skeletal muscle CSA of the whole thigh, knee extensor and knee flexor muscle groups increased by 28%, 35% and 16%, respectively22. Dudley et al. showed that 8 weeks twice-weekly of NMES-RT restored knee extensor muscle size to 75% of the original size at six weeks post-injury19. Moreover, Mahoney et al. utilized the same protocol and noted a 35% and 39% increase in the right and left rectus femoris muscles after 12 weeks of NMES-RT20.

Functional electrical stimulation-lower extremities cycling (FES-LEC) is a common rehabilitation technique used to exercise lower extremity muscle groups after SCI25,26. Unlike NMES-RT, FES-LEC relies on stimulation of 6 muscle groups, which may result in increased hypertrophy and improvements in the cardiometabolic profile10,25,26,27,28. Dolbow et al. found that total body lean mass increased by 18.5% following 56 months of FES-LEC in an individual with SCI27. Following twelve months of thrice-weekly FES-LEC, a 60-year old female with paraplegia experienced a 7.7% increase in total body lean mass and a 4.1% increase in leg lean mass28. Routine use of functional electrical stimulation (FES) is associated with improvement in risk factors of cardiometabolic conditions after SCI10,25,26.

Ideal candidates for electrical stimulation training will have either motor complete or incomplete injuries, with intact peripheral motor neurons and limited lower extremity sensation. The current manuscript, describes a combined approach using NMES-RT and FES-LEC designed to improve outcomes of electrical stimulation training in persons with chronic SCI. The process of NMES-RT using ankle weights will be outlined, while highlighting key steps within the protocol and the overall benefit the intervention provides to persons with chronic SCI. The second aim is to describe the process of FES-LEC designed to maximize the overall cardiometabolic effect of intervention. Previous work has affirmed our rational that a combined training protocol may evoke greater outcomes following 24 weeks of electrical stimulation training20,21,22,23,24,25,26,31,32,33,34,35,36.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The training protocol described in this manuscript is registered with clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT01652040). The training program involves NMES-RT with ankle weights and FES-LEC. All necessary equipment is listed in Table 2. The study protocol and informed consent were reviewed and approved by the Richmond VAMC Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) IRB. All study procedures were explained in-detail to each participant before beginning the trial.

1. Participant Recruitment

  1. Perform a pre-screening evaluation with potential participants.
    1. Thoroughly explain the details of the training protocol including the length of study (24 weeks), times per week (bi-weekly) and length of sessions (NMES-RT: 30 min and FES-LEC: 45-60 min).
      NOTE: NMES-RT is conducted for the first 12 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of FES-LEC.
    2. Describe the medical requirements to the potential participant including: male or female with SCI, American Spinal Injury Classification (AIS) A, B or C (those with an AIS "C" classification who are unable to stand up and walk), 18 to 65-year old, greater than 1-year post-injury, body mass index (BMI) ≤ 30 kg/m2, motor complete or incomplete C5-L2 level of injury.
    3. Describe the medical restrictions to the potential participant including: a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled type II diabetes mellitus or those on insulin, uncontrolled hypertension, pressure sores stage 3 or greater, urinary tract infection or symptoms, osteoporosis with T-Score -2.5, and pregnancy for women with SCI.

2. NMES-RT

  1. Ensure the participant voids his/her bladder and measure the resting blood pressure and heart rate. While participant is seated in wheelchair, instruct the participant to take off his/her shoes. Then, place a pillow behind the calf to cushion the leg during knee flexion. Apply ankle weights (0-26 lbs.) to the participant's ankles (Figure 1).
    NOTE: The initial 2 sessions are conducted without ankle weights to ensure the participant can lift his/her leg against gravity.
  2. Apply two 7.5 cm x 12.7 cm adhesive carbon electrodes bilaterally on the skin over the knee extensor muscle group.
    1. Place the distal electrode ~1/3 the distance between the patella and inguinal fold and medial to the midline of the quadriceps. Place the electrode longitudinally and parallel to the midline axis running from the hip to the knee joints (Figure 2).
    2. Place the proximal electrode laterally and adjacent to the inguinal fold over the vastus lateralis muscle. Place the electrode longitudinally and parallel to the midline axis (Figure 2).
  3. Set a portable stimulator to a frequency of 30 Hz and a biphasic rectangular pulse width of 450 µs and 50 µs interpulse interval19,20,21,22,23,24,37,38,39. Connect the cables from the stimulator to each electrode.
    NOTE: The polarity of the electrodes does not influence the stimulation pattern as long as the electrodes are positioned correctly.
  4. Beginning with the right leg, gradually increase the current until a noticeable visible tension is recognized in the knee extensor muscle group. Continue to slowly ramp the current to evoke full knee extension (max. 200 mA). Allow the leg to remain extended for 3-5 s to evoke maximum tension in the activated motor units.
  5. Gradually decrease the current until it's below 50% of the target current required to extend the leg and move leg eccentrically back to the starting position. Record the current amplitude necessary to evoke full leg extension.
  6. Complete unilateral training including 4 sets of 10 repetitions per leg and alternate between right and left legs. Allow the leg to rest 3-5 s between each repetition and 3 min between sets. If participant does not reach full knee extension, record the %range of motion and increase the time between repetitions.
    NOTE: Muscle fatigue is defined as two consecutive repetitions with a range of motion ≤ 25%.
  7. Attempt each of the four sets, but if participant experiences muscle fatigue, end the current set and continue training on the opposite leg. If full knee extension is achieved without muscle fatigue for 2 consecutive training sessions, add 2 lbs. of ankle weights the following week of training.

3. FES-LEC

  1. Measure the participant's resting blood pressure and heart rate. Position the participant in front of the FES ergometer bike (Table of Materials) seated in his/her personal power or manual wheelchair (Figure 3a, Figure 3b).
  2. Apply adhesive carbon electrodes to the knee extensor, knee flexor and gluteus maximus muscle groups bilaterally.
    1. For knee extensors, place the distal electrode (7.5 x 12.7 cm) on the skin 1/3 the distance between the patella and inguinal fold, over the vastus medialis muscle. Place the proximal electrode laterally and adjacent to the inguinal fold over the vastus lateralis muscle (Figure 4a).
    2. For knee flexors, place the distal electrode (7.5 x 10 cm) on the skin 2-3 cm above the popliteal fossa. Place the proximal electrode 20 cm above the popliteal fossa (Figure 4b). To prevent movement of the distal electrode, apply an elastic wrap to secure positioning of the electrode (Figure 3a).
    3. For gluteus maximus, instruct the participant to lean forward towards the ergometer. Place two electrodes (5 x 9 cm) parallel and on the bulk of the muscle belly; allow ~two fingers width of separation between the electrodes.
  3. With the participant seated in his/her wheelchair and centered in front of the ergometer, connect the cables from the stimulator to each of the 12 electrodes. Check the front and back of the ergometer to make sure the participant is correctly centered.
  4. Ensure that the participant's wheelchair is locked and gently place the participant's feet (wearing tennis shoes) inside the pedals (Figure 6). Secure the lower leg to the ergometer using the elastic straps wrapped in a fabric covering. Secure the participant's feet in place with the two crossing elastic straps and Velcro located on each petal (Figure 5).
  5. After strapping the legs to the ergometer, passively move the legs so observe the cycling pattern. If the legs are too compressed or hyperextended, adjust the height of the bike and recheck the position by passively moving the leg.
  6. Secure the participant's wheelchair to the ergometer using the two extendable hooks located at the base of the ergometer. Connect the hooks to a stable structure underneath the wheelchair (Figure 5). Place two wooden breaks underneath the wheels of the wheelchair, to prevent any movement of chair during cycling.
  7. Set the stimulation frequency to 33.3 Hz, pulse duration to 350 µs and the current amplitude to 140, 100, 100 mA for the knee extensor, knee flexor and gluteus maximus muscle groups, respectively.
  8. Set the cycle parameters as follows: target speed of 40-45 revolutions per minute (RPM); adjustable motor torque starting at 10 Nm; resistance of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 Nm for exercise stages I, II and III.
  9. Set the interval training parameters as follows: 3 min "warm up" phase; three 10-min exercise stages (stimulation on); a 2-min resting phase following each exercise stage; and 3 min "cool down" phase.
  10. Based on the level of injury (above or below T4), measure the blood pressure and heart rate every 2 to 5 min to prevent the occurrence of any symptoms of autonomic dysreflexia.
  11. If blood pressure remains elevated, stop the ergometer and instruct the participant to void his/her bladder or rest if they have already voided. In addition, check to ensure the participant is seated properly to reduce any pressure points and check that the shoes or any straps are not overly-tightened. Monitor blood pressure closely every 2 min. If blood pressure recovers, resume training; if blood pressure remains unrecovered, end the session and instruct the participant to see his/her primary care physician.
    NOTE: It is vital to ensure that participants consistently take their blood pressure medication, if any, and void their bladder before FES-cycling.
  12. Record the participant's heart rate, speed, power, distance, resistance and % stimulation every 30 s.
  13. If participant completes an entire exercise session without fatigue (speed < 18 RPM during active cycling), decrease the servo motor torque assistance by 1 Nm the following session, otherwise keep all parameters the same.
  14. If participant completes two exercise training sessions without fatigue or the use of servo motor assistance during exercise stages, increase the resistance by 0.5 Nm in each exercise stage.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Ankle weights increased progressively for 22 participants, over 16 weeks of NMES-RT (Figure 6a). The average weights lifted by the participants was 19.6 ± 6.5 lb. (right leg) and 20 ± 6 lbs. (left leg) [8-24 lb.]. Current amplitude fluctuated throughout the trial for right and left legs (Figure 6b).

Progression of an individual with motor complete SCI following 12 weeks...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The current study demonstrated two different paradigms of electrical stimulation. One paradigm is focused on implementing progressive loading to the trained muscle to evoke skeletal muscle hypertrophy and the other paradigm is primarily intended to enhance cardio-metabolic performance via enhancing aerobic capacity. The study ensured to compare both paradigms and to highlight the pros and cons of each.

NMES-RT is proven to be effective in restoring muscle size and evoking hypertrophy in person...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

We would like to thank the participants who devoted the time and effort to participate in the previous studies. We would like to thank Hunter Holmes McGuire Research Institute and Spinal Cord Injury Services and Disorders for providing the environment to conduct clinical human research trials. Ashraf S. Gorgey is currently supported by the Department of Veteran Affairs, Veteran Health Administration, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (B7867-W) and DoD-CDRMP (W81XWH-14-SCIRP-CTA).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
adhesive carbon electrodes (2 of each)Physio Tech (Richmond, VA, USA 23233)PT3X5
PALS3X4
E7300		7.5' x 12.7'
7.5' x 10'
5' x 9'
TheraTouch 4.7 stimulatorRichmar (Chattanooga, TN, USA 37406)400-08241.28' x 39.37' x 17.78' (8.91 kg)
power: 110 VAC at 60 Hz / 220VAC at 50 Hz
power consumption: 110 Watts
Red & White Lead Cords (2)Richmar (Chattanooga, TN, USA 37406)A17172.0 m
RT300-SL FES ErgometerRestorative Therapies, Inc. (Baltimore, MD, USA 21231)RT300-SL80' x 49' x 92-103' (39 kg)
16 channel
speed: 15 – 55 rev/min
elastic NuStim wraps (2)Fabrifoam (Exton, PA, USA 19341)PP10866636"
wooden wheelchair break (2)n/an/an/a
pillow/cushionn/an/astandard
ankle weightsn/an/a2-26 lb.

References

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
  1. National Cord Injury Statistical Center. Facts and Figures at a Glance. , University of Alabama at Birmingham. Birmingham, AL. (2016).
  2. Gorgey, A., Dolbow, D., Dolbow, J., Khalil, R., Castillo, C., Gater, D. Effects of spinal cord injury on body composition and metabolic profile-Part I. J Spinal Cord Med. 37 (6), 693-702 (2014).
  3. Castro, M., Apple, D., Hillegass, E., Dudley, G. Influence of complete spinal cord injury on skeletal muscle cross-sectional area within the first 6 months of injury. Eur J Appl Physiol O. 80 (4), 373-378 (1999).
  4. Gorgey, A., Dudley, G. Skeletal muscle atrophy and increased intramuscular fat after incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 45 (4), 304-309 (2007).
  5. Elder, C., Apple, D., Bickel, C., Meyer, R., Dudley, G. Intramuscular fat and glucose tolerance after spinal cord injury - a cross-sectional study. Spinal Cord. 42 (12), 711-716 (2004).
  6. Monroe, M., Tataranni, P., Pratley, R., Manore, M., Skinner, J., Ravussin, E. Lower daily energy expenditure as measured by respiratory chamber in subjects with spinal cord injury compared with control subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 68 (6), 1223-1227 (1998).
  7. Buchholz, A., Pencharz, P. Energy expenditure in chronic spinal cord injury. Curr Opin Clin Nutr. 7 (6), 635-639 (2004).
  8. Buchholz, A., McGillivray, C., Pencharz, P. Physical activity levels are low in free-living adults with chronic paraplegia. Obes Res. 11 (4), 563-570 (2003).
  9. Olle, M., Pivarnik, J., Klish, W., Morrow, J. Body composition of sedentary and physically active spinal cord injured individuals estimated from total body electoral conductivity. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 74 (7), 706-710 (1993).
  10. Mollinger, L., et al. Daily energy expenditure and basal metabolic rates of patients with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Regab. 66 (7), 420-426 (1985).
  11. Gater, D. Obesity after spinal cord injury. Phys Med Rehabil Cli. 18 (2), 333-351 (2007).
  12. Khalil, R., Gorgey, A., Janisko, M., Dolbow, D., Moore, J., Gater, D. The role of nutrition in health status after spinal cord injury. Aging Dis. 4 (1), 14-22 (2013).
  13. Gorgey, A., et al. Frequency of Dietary Recalls, Nutritional Assessment, and Body Composition Assessment in Men with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 96 (9), 1646-1653 (2015).
  14. Bauman, W., Spungen, A. Carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in chronic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 24 (4), 266-277 (2001).
  15. Bauman, W., Spungen, A. Disorders of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in veterans with paraplegia or quadriplegia: a model of premature aging. Metabolism. 43 (6), 749-756 (1994).
  16. Bauman, W., Spungen, A., Zhong, Y., Rothstein, J., Petry, C., Gordon, S. Depressed serum high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in veterans with spinal cord injury. Paraplegia. 30 (10), 697-703 (1992).
  17. Nash, M., Mendez, A. A guideline-driven assessment of need for cardiovascular disease risk intervention in persons with chronic paraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 88 (6), 751-757 (2007).
  18. Aksnes, A., Hjeltnes, N., Wahlstrom, E., Katz, A., Zierath, J., Wallberg-Henriksson, H. Intact glucose transport in morphologically altered denervated skeletal muscle from quadriplegic patients. Am J Physiol. 271 (3), E593-E600 (1996).
  19. Dudley, G., Castro, M., Rogers, S., Apple, D. A simple means of increasing muscle size after spinal cord injury: a pilot study. Eur J Appl Physiol O. 80 (4), 394-396 (1999).
  20. Mahoney, E., et al. Changes in skeletal muscle size and glucose tolerance with electrically stimulated resistance training in subjects with chronic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 86 (7), 1502-1504 (2005).
  21. Gorgey, A., Shepherd, C. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and decreased intramuscular fat after unilateral resistance training in spinal cord injury: case report. J Spinal Cord Med. 33 (1), 90-95 (2010).
  22. Gorgey, A., Mather, K., Cupp, H., Gater, D. Effects of resistance training on adiposity and metabolism after spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sport Exer. 44 (1), 165-174 (2012).
  23. Ryan, T., Brizendine, J., Backus, D., McCully, K. Electrically induced resistance training in individuals with motor complete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 94 (11), 2166-2173 (2013).
  24. Gorgey, A., et al. Feasibility Pilot using Telehealth Video-Conference Monitoring of Home-Based NMES Resistance Training in Persons with Spinal Cord Injury. Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 3 (17039), (2017).
  25. Gater, D., Dolbow, D., Tsui, B., Gorgey, A. Functional electrical stimulation therapies after spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation. 28 (3), 231-248 (2011).
  26. Gorgey, A., Dolbow, D., Dolbow, J., Khalil, R., Gater, D. The effects of electrical stimulation on body composition and metabolic profile after spinal cord injury - Part II. J Spinal Cord Med. 38 (1), 23-37 (2015).
  27. Dolbow, D., Gorgey, A., Khalil, R., Gater, D. Effects of a fifty-six month electrical stimulation cycling program after tetraplegia: case report. J Spinal Cord Med. 40 (4), 485-488 (2016).
  28. Dolbow, D., Gorgey, A., Gater, D., Moore, J. Body composition changes after 12 months of FES cycling: case report of a 60-year-old female with paraplegia. Spinal Cord. 1 (S3-S4), (2014).
  29. Gorgey, A., Cho, G., Dolbow, D., Gater, D. Differences in current amplitude evoking leg extension in individuals with spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation. 33 (1), 161-170 (2013).
  30. Wade, R., Gorgey, A. Skeletal muscle conditioning may be an effective rehabilitation intervention preceding functional electrical stimulation cycling. Neural Regen Res. 11 (8), 1232-1233 (2016).
  31. Mohr, T., Dela, F., Handberg, A., Biering-Sørensen, F., Galbo, H., Kjaer, M. Insulin action and long-term electrically induced training in individuals with spinal cord injuries. Med Sci Sports Exer. 33 (8), 1247-1252 (2001).
  32. Jeon, J., et al. Improved glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity after electrical stimulation-assisted cycling in people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 40 (3), 110-117 (2002).
  33. Kjaer, M., et al. Fatty acid kinetics and carbohydrate metabolism during electrical exercise in spinal cord-injured humans. Am J Physiol-Reg I. 281 (5), R1492-R1498 (2001).
  34. Hettinga, D., Andrews, B. Oxygen consumption during functional electrical stimulation assisted exercise in persons with spinal cord injury: implications for fitness and health. Sports Med. 38 (10), 825-838 (2008).
  35. Yarar-Fisher, C., Bickel, C., Windham, S., McLain, A., Bamman, M. Skeletal muscle signaling associated with impaired glucose tolerance in spinal cord-injured men and the effects of contractile activity. J Appl Physiol. 115 (5), 756-764 (1985).
  36. Yarar-Fisher, C., Bickel, C., Kelly, N., Windham, S., Mclain, A., Bamman, M. Mechanosensitivity may be enhanced in skeletal muscles of spinal cord-injured versus ablebodied men. Muscle Nerve. 50 (4), 599-601 (2014).
  37. Gorgey, A., Mahoney, E., Kendall, T., Dudley, G. Effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation parameters on specific tension. Eur J Appl Physiol. 97 (6), 737-744 (2006).
  38. Gorgey, A., Black, C., Elder, C., Dudley, G. Effects of electrical stimulation parameters on fatigue in skeletal muscle. J Orthop Sports Phys. 39 (9), 84-92 (2009).
  39. Gorgey, A., et al. Effects of Testosterone and Evoked Resistance Exercise after Spinal Cord Injury (TEREX-SCI): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 7 (4), (2017).
  40. Nelson, M., et al. Metabolic syndrome in adolescents with spinal cord dysfunction. J Spinal Cord Med. 30 (s1), 127-139 (2007).
  41. Ashley, E., et al. Evidence of autonomic dysreflexia during functional electrical stimulation in individuals with spinal cord injuries. Paraplegia. 31 (9), 593-605 (1993).
  42. Hasnan, N., et al. Exercise responses during functional electrical stimulation cycling in individuals with spinal cord injury. Med Sci Sports Exer. 45 (6), 1131-1138 (2013).
  43. Fornusek, C., Davis, G., Russold, M. Pilot study of the effect of low-cadence functional electrical stimulation cycling after spinal cord injury on thigh girth and strength. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 94 (5), 990-993 (2013).
  44. Gorgey, A., Poarch, H., Dolbow, D., Castillo, T., Gater, D. The Impact of adjusting pulse durations of functional electrical stimulation cycling on energy expenditure and fatigue after spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 51 (9), 1455-1468 (2014).
  45. Ryan, A., Ivey, F., Prior, S., Li, G., Hafer-Macko, C. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and muscle myostatin reduction after resistive training in stroke survivors. Stroke. 42 (2), 416-420 (2011).
  46. Sabatier, M., et al. Electrically stimulated resistance training in SCI individuals increases muscle fatigue resistance but not femoral artery size or blood flow. Spinal Cord. 44 (4), 227-233 (2006).
  47. Johnston, T., et al. Musculoskeletal Effects of 2 Functional Electrical Stimulation Cycling Paradigms Conducted at Different Cadences for People With Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Study. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 97 (9), 1413-1422 (2016).
  48. Gorgey, A., Cho, G., Dolbow, D., Gater, D. Differences in current amplitude evoking leg extension in individuals with spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation. 33 (1), 161-170 (2013).
  49. Gorgey, A., Martin, H., Metz, A., Khalil, R., Dolbow, D., Gater, D. Longitudinal changes in body composition and metabolic profile between exercise clinical trials in men with chronic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 39 (6), 699-712 (2016).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Tags

Neuromuscular Electrical StimulationFunctional Electrical StimulationLower Extremity CyclingResistance TrainingMuscle AtrophyCardio metabolic BenefitsElectrode PlacementStimulation ParametersRehabilitation Protocol

Related Articles