Article

Device tolerability is an important determinant of subject adherence
and intervention effectiveness. Although popular in rehabilitation settings, the
tolerability of whole-body vibration (WBV) among patients with spinal cord injury
(SCI) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess feedback from SCI and non-SCI subjects on
the usability of passive standing and WBV devices (Juvent [Juvent Medical,
Somerset, NJ] and WAVE [WAVE Manufacturing, Windsor, Ontario, Canada]) using a
priori specified knee postures, plate amplitudes, and frequencies. DESIGN: A
matched groups design with repeated measures. SETTING: A tertiary SCI
rehabilitation center. SUBJECTS: Eight men with chronic SCI (C4-L2, American
Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A-D) and 10 men without SCI of similar
height, weight, and body mass index. INTERVENTION: Subjects (N = 18; 8 with SCI)
underwent intermittent WBV during passive standing (EasyStand 5000 [Altimate
Medical, Morton, MN]) for 45 minutes using the optimized WAVE and Juvent plates.
WBV parameters were sequentially altered every 2 minutes and included parameter
combinations of (1) postures of 140 degrees , 160 degrees , and 180 degrees knee
extension (180 degrees with Juvent only); (2) amplitudes of 0.7 mm and 1.1 mm
(WAVE only); and (3) frequencies of 25 Hz, 35 Hz, and 45 Hz. Outcome assessments
were completed at 4-minute intervals throughout WBV exposure. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES: Qualitative, semistructured interviews were used to generate neutral,
positive, and negative descriptors of the subjects' overall experience and device
preference. RESULTS: SCI subjects reported a greater frequency of positive
descriptors than non-SCI subjects during WBV, regardless of plate, posture,
amplitude, or frequency, with the exception of 1 combination of parameters (WAVE
plate at 140 degrees , 1.1 mm, and 25 Hz). Non-SCI subjects reported the highest
frequency of negative effects with the WAVE plate at 160 degrees , 1.1 mm, 25 Hz,
and 35 Hz. Non-SCI subjects preferred the Juvent, whereas SCI subjects preferred
the WAVE plate. CONCLUSIONS: SCI and non-SCI subjects reported differing
frequencies of positive and negative descriptors and indicated divergent device
preferences. SCI subjects preferred the WAVE plate and vibration at high
frequency. Future research will determine the therapeutic potential and adverse
events associated with the device and WBV parameters tolerable for persons with
SCI.
CI - Copyright (c) 2012 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Langue : ANGLAIS