







| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knee Rehabilitation, Part IIBy Thomas Souza, DC, DACBSP Last month, we discussed the findings of several studies on electromyographic (EMG) responses to several commonly used exercises in knee rehabilitation. This month, we will discuss several important, commonly employed approaches to knee rehabilitation. Issues that will be addressed include:
Elastic Tubing Exercises A recent study by Hintermiester et al.1 evaluated EMG activity (surface electrodes) of five exercises using elastic tubing. These exercises included:
Recommendations by the authors suggest using the less stressful exercises first based on needs of a specific rehab program (e.g., ACL problem versus patellofemoral problem). For example, for patients with an ACL deficiency, a hamstring pull and leg press might be good starting exercises. Progression to more challenging exercises should be based on the ability to perform the less stressful exercises first. It should be noted that most of the exercises demonstrated a slight increase in VMO activity as compared to VLO activity, but it is not believed that this is clinically significant by most researchers. VMO Recruitment It is generally accepted that the VMO is important for patellar stabilization, in particular through the last 15 degrees or so of extension. As a result, many studies have attempted to determine if any particular exercise was significantly better at isolating the VMO. It has been almost unanimously agreed based on numerous EMG studies that most exercises do not show a clinically significant increase in VMO activity over VLO activity. A study by Laprade et al.2 re-emphasizes this point and in addition calls into question a commonly reported claim that adding adduction to knee extension increases VMO activity over extension alone. In the past, it was assumed that because the VMO originates primarily from the adductor longus and magnus tendons and the medial intramuscular septum, adding adduction would increase or preferentially stimulate the VMO. This is a logical assumption not borne out by this study. Although one study (upon which most of this connection between adduction and VMO activity was based) indicated significant increases, it is clear that their EMG values were not normalized; therefore, their conclusions must be questioned. It has also been suggested that the VMO might have some medial (internal) rotation affect on the tibia, based on the observation that the lowermost fibers of the VMO attach to the anteromedial aspect of the tibia. The study by Laprade et al. tests this hypothesis. This study also addresses whether there are any significant differences in VMO or VLO recruitment between patients with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. In this current study by Laprade et al., subjects were asked to perform four isometric exercises while surface EMG readings were taken:
The results did not demonstrate any difference in the activity of VMO or VLO muscles or ratio of activity between the VMO/VLO between the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. The results also indicated no preferential recruitment of the VMO over the VLO for most exercises including adduction with extension. There was some increase in VMO over VLO contraction using medial rotation with extension. Still, the difference between VMO and VLO activity would in no way isolate the VMO over the VLO. This exercise would, however, guarantee a good strengthening effect for both muscles with some degree of VMO focus. References
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection Buy |
|
||||||
|
To report inappropriate ads, |
|
|
|
Chiropractic Mailing Lists | Chiropractic Industry News | Classified Advertising | DC News Update Newsletter Discussion Forums | Event Calendar | For Chiropractic Students | Link to Us | Meet the Staff Other Sources | Previous Issues | Research Review Newsletter | Site Map | Webcasts [ Home ] [ Contact Us ]
Other MPA Media Sites:
Policies: |
|
All Rights Reserved, Dynamic Chiropractic, 2009.
|