Russian Current Research Articles

Effect of Superimposed Russian Current on Quadriceps Strength and Lower-Extremity Endurance in Healthy Males and Females.

More studies are needed to compare the effect of voluntary contraction, electrical stimulation, and electrical stimulation superimposed onto voluntary contraction in improving trained and untrained homolog muscle strength and lower-extremity endurance. Seventy-six healthy young adults (age = 20.41 [3.07]y, 61 females and 15 males) were included in the study. Subjects were randomly divided into 3 groups as voluntary isometric contraction (IC) group, Russian current (RC) group, and superimposed Russian current (SRC) group. All training regimens were performed under physiotherapist supervision for a total of 18 sessions (3 times per week for 6wk). In each session, 10 ICs were achieved with voluntary isometric exercise only, RC only, or RC superimposed onto ICs. Main outcome measures were trained and untrained quadriceps strength (maximal voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC]) and lower-extremity endurance (sit-to-stand test). After 6weeks of training, all outcome measures improved in all groups (P < .05), except the untrained quadriceps MVIC score of RC group (P = .562). The trained quadriceps MVIC score (P < .001, η2 = .478), untrained quadriceps MVIC score (P = .011, η2 = .115), and sit-to-stand test score (P < .001, η2 = .357) differed significantly among the 3 groups; post hoc analysis revealed that the trained quadriceps MVIC score was higher in SRC and RC groups than in the IC group, untrained quadriceps MVIC score was higher in SRC group than in the RC group, and sit-to-stand test score was higher in SRC group than in the RC group and IC group. RC and RC superimposed onto IC are superior to IC in improving quadriceps muscle strength, and RC superimposed onto IC is superior to RC and IC in improving lower-extremity endurance. RC superimposed onto IC and voluntary IC created cross-education effect on untrained quadriceps.

Russian current versus high voltage current with isokinetic training on the quadriceps muscle strength and endurance.

Electrotherapy modalities are one of the increasing ways of muscle strength and endurance. However, it is not clear which electrotherapy modalities are more effective. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of Russian current (RC) and high voltage pulsed current (HVPC) on the strength and endurance of the quadriceps muscle. The study was performed on 10 volleyball athletes. The participants’ extremities were divided into two groups as RC and HVPC. Muscle strength and endurance levels were assessed by an isokinetic device. Isokinetic training and 20-min electrotherapy were given in each treatment session. This training program consisted of a total of 12 sessions, scheduled twice a week for 6 weeks. After training, knee extensor peak torque values and endurance ratios have increased in both groups, but it was determined that this increase was only significant in terms of the endurance ratio (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the muscle strength and the endurance ratio of the RC and HVPC groups (P>0.05). RC or HVPC have no advantages over each other, and therefore it has been determined that both currents can be used in order to strengthen muscles and increase muscular endurance. Additional studies whose longer-term effects will investigate are needed.

Russian and Low-Frequency Currents Induced Similar Neuromuscular Adaptations in Soccer Players: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation is widely used to induce muscular strength increase; however, no study has compared Russian current (RC) with pulsed current (PC) effects after a training program. We studied the effects of different neuromuscular electrical stimulation currents, RC, and PC on the neuromuscular system after a 6-week training period. Blinded randomized controlled trial. Laboratory. A total of 27 male soccer players (age 22.2 [2.2]y, body mass 74.2 [10.0]kg, height 177 [0]cm, and body mass index 23.7 [2.9]kg/cm2 for the control group; 22.1 [3.1]y, 69.7 [5.7]kg, 174 [0]cm, and 23.0 [2.5]kg/cm for the PC group; and 23.0 [3.4]y, 72.1 [10.7]kg, 175 [0]cm, and 23.5 [3.4]kg/cm for the RC group) were randomized into 3 groups: (1)control group; (2)RC (2500Hz, burst 100Hz, and phase duration 200μs); and (3)PC (100Hz and 200μs). The experimental groups trained for 6 weeks, with 3 sessions per week with neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction and evoked torque, muscle architecture, sensory discomfort (visual analog scale), and electromyographic activity were evaluated before and after the 6-week period. Evoked torque increased in the RC (169.5% [78.2%], P < .01) and PC (248.7% [81.1%], P < .01) groups. Muscle thickness and pennation angle increased in the RC (8.7% [3.8%] and 16.7% [9.0%], P < .01) and PC (16.1% [8.0%] and 27.4% [11.0%], P < .01) groups. The PC demonstrated lower values for visual analog scale (38.8% [17.1%], P < .01). There was no significant time difference for maximal voluntary isometric contraction and root mean square values (P > .05). For all these variables, there was no difference between the RC and PC (P > .05). Despite the widespread use of RC in clinical practice, RC and PC training programs produced similar neuromuscular adaptations in soccer players. Nonetheless, as PC generated less perceived discomfort, it could be preferred after several training sessions.

Effects of the Russian current in the treatment of low back pain in women: A randomized clinical trial

BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a high impact condition that affects the working population, generating social and economic repercussions, the most relevant symptoms being pain and functional disability. Conservative treatment is often based on stabilizing spinal muscles with exercises: the Russian current (RC) is reported as an alternative, because it promotes muscle contraction, providing muscle strengthening and hypertrophy. ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the RC in aiding the treatment of low back pain. MethodsThis randomized study included 23 women aged 18–30 years, divided into two groups: the control group (CG) and the Russian current group (RCG), for four weeks. Pain (visual analogue scale, VAS; pressure algometer, PA), function (Oswestry Low Back Disability Index), resistance (trunk resistance [TR] test) and thickness changes in the muscle (ultrasound image) were evaluated before and after the RC protocol and at one-month follow-up. ResultsThere were significant VAS reductions in both groups, but at follow-up these had only been maintained in the RCG, which presented lower values than the CG in the second evaluation. For PA, Oswestry and TR, there were differences only in the RCG. In a comparison of LBP between the groups, the initial difference disappeared in subsequent evaluations; TR presented higher values in evaluation 2 and 3 in the RCG group. In terms of thickness changes, differences between the groups were reduced after treatment. ConclusionThe proposed treatment was effective in the reduction of LBP, with short-term improvement in resistance and thickness changes of the multifidus.

Effects of Russian current and low-frequency pulsed current on discomfort level and current amplitude at 10% maximal knee extensor torque

Background: Low-frequency pulsed current (LFPC) and Russian current (RC), a type of kilohertz-frequency alternating current, have been frequently used for muscle strengthening in rehabilitation programs. Despite the popularity of these current types, it is unclear which is most effectively able to generate a similar submaximal torque with minimal discomfort and current amplitude. Objective: To compare discomfort and current amplitude between LFPC and RC to achieve a knee extensor torque of 10% of the maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC). Methods: Twenty-two healthy subjects were subjected to three electrically elicited knee extensor submaximal contractions (10% MIVC) that were sustained for 10 seconds. The current amplitude required to achieve 10% MIVC and subjective discomfort were assessed directly by the electrical stimulator and with the Visual Analogue Pain Scale, respectively. A paired t-test was used to determine differences between the electrical currents (α = 0.05). Results: LFPC required significantly lower current amplitude (15%) and a lower discomfort level (50%) to achieve 10% of MIVC compared to RC. Conclusion: LFPC current seems to be more effective than RC with respect to discomfort level and current amplitude to produce 10% of MIVC.