PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

PHYS THER
Vol. 71, No. 6, June 1991, pp. 455-461
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Draper, V
Right arrow Articles by Ballard, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Draper, V
Right arrow Articles by Ballard, L

Research Report

Electrical stimulation versus electromyographic biofeedback in the recovery of quadriceps femoris muscle function following anterior cruciate ligament surgery

V Draper and L Ballard

Knoxville Orthopedic Clinic, TN 37909.

Both electrical stimulation and electromyographic biofeedback have been shown to be more effective than voluntary isometric exercise alone in the recovery of quadriceps femoris muscle force following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. In a comparison of these two modalities, 30 patients with ACL reconstruction were randomly assigned to either a group receiving electrical stimulation in conjunction with voluntary isometric exercise or a group receiving biofeedback in conjunction with voluntary isometric exercise. Following 6 weeks of a rehabilitative exercise protocol, the quadriceps femoris muscle isometric peak torque in the operative limb was compared with that in the nonoperative limb. A t test of independent samples indicated that the biofeedback group recovered a significantly greater percentage of their nonoperative limb's peak torque than did the electrical stimulation group. Measurements of active knee extension were taken at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the exercise program. A two-way analysis of variance (groups x weeks) indicated no significant difference between the rate at which each group recovered full active extension. The authors concluded that biofeedback is more effective than electrical stimulation in facilitating the recovery of peak torque and that biofeedback is comparable to electrical stimulation in the recovery of active knee extension.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
C. L Lyons, J. B Robb, J. J Irrgang, and G K. Fitzgerald
Differences in Quadriceps Femoris Muscle Torque When Using a Clinical Electrical Stimulator Versus a Portable Electrical Stimulator
Physical Therapy, January 1, 2005; 85(1): 44 - 51.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
M. Vanderthommen, S. Duteil, C. Wary, J. S. Raynaud, A. Leroy-Willig, J. M. Crielaard, and P. G. Carlier
A comparison of voluntary and electrically induced contractions by interleaved 1H- and 31P-NMRS in humans
J Appl Physiol, March 1, 2003; 94(3): 1012 - 1024.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ptjournalHome page
Philadelphia Panel Members, Clinical Specialty Experts, J. Albright, R. Allman, R. P. Bonfiglio, A. Conill, B. Dobkin, A. A Guccione, S. Hasson, R. Russo, et al.
Philadelphia Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions for Knee Pain
Physical Therapy, October 1, 2001; 81(10): 1675 - 1700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ptjournalHome page
G. L Soderberg and L. M Knutson
A Guide for Use and Interpretation of Kinesiologic Electromyographic Data
Physical Therapy, May 1, 2000; 80(5): 485 - 498.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Physical Therapy Association.