![]() There was no statistical difference in participant preference, whereas the HFSC had a statistically significant higher perceived exertion than the knee scooter ( P <. When comparing the knee scooter and HFSC to walking, both showed increased muscle activity in the RF, VL, and LG but no difference in the GM. The RF, LG, and GM showed increased peak EMG activity percentage, and the LG showed increased mean muscle activity while using the HFSC compared with the knee scooter. Immediately following testing, patient exertion and device preference was recorded. Mean muscle activity and peak EMG activity were recorded for each ambulatory modality. Participants then ambulated along a 20-m walking area while 15 seconds of the gait cycle was recorded across 3 conditions: walking with a knee scooter, an HFSC, and with no assistive device. Wireless surface EMG electrodes were placed on the belly of the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), lateral gastrocnemius (LG), and gluteus maximus (GM). The purpose of this study is to examine the electromyographic (EMG) differences between an HFSC and knee scooter, in conjunction with device preference and perceived exertion.Ī randomized crossover study was performed using 30 noninjured young adults. Knee scooters are another commonly prescribed nonweightbearing device. Our previous study compared a hands-free single crutch (HFSC) to standard axillary crutches and found increased muscle recruitment and intensity while using the HFSC. Foot and ankle injuries frequently require a period of nonweightbearing, resulting in muscle atrophy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |