Abstract
153 The purpose of this study was to determine differences in 3D pedal forces and torques, ankle and knee joint forces, and medio-lateral leg restraint forces between electrical stimulation-induced (ES) leg cycle ergometry (LCE) and voluntary (VOL) LCE. Six men with spinal cord injuries (SCI; C5-T7) and 6 weight-matched able-bodied (AB) men performed LCE exercise at 6.3 W on a recumbent LCE device (Ergys-1, Therapeutic Alliances, Inc.) equipped with 3D force pedals and force transducers in both leg restraints. ES-LCE was induced by percutaneous stimulation of the mm. quadriceps, hamstrings, and gluteals. Motion analysis of pedal and limb segments (right leg) and inverse dynamics were used to calculate 3D ankle and knee joint forces. Cycling patterns were similar for both groups, but the ES-LCE pattern seemed less smooth and more erratic. Paired t-tests showed that peak shear (forward) pedal forces and ranges were higher (p<0.05) for ES-LCE (71±11 vs 27±25 N; 54±5 vs 26±8 N, respectively). Peak medio-lateral and downward pedal forces did not significantly differ between groups. Peak ankle joint compression and shear forces were higher (p<0.05) for ES-LCE (98±10 vs 52±9 N; 71±10 vs 23±21 N). Peak knee joint compression forces were higher (p<0.05) for VOL-LCE (111±4 vs 94±13 N), while peak shear forces were higher (p<0.05) for ES-LCE (69±12 vs 23±21 N). Peak medio-lateral forces in both joints were not different between groups. Peak lateral leg restraint forces were higher in ES-LCE(28±6 vs 11±7 N). Peak torques around the x-axis (plantar flexion) and the y-axis (eversion) were higher in ES-LCE (4±1 vs 2±1 Nm; 2±1 vs 0±1 Nm). These data indicate that 3D biomechanics of ES-LCE differ from VOL-LCE which may contribute to the inefficiency of this induced exercise mode.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call