Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy for the prevention and early phase treatment of delayed-onset muscle soreness of the low back: A randomized controlled trial

Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.44). 10/2006; 87(10):1310-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.07.259
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the effects of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy for the prevention and early phase treatment (ie, 0-48 h postexercise) of delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) of the low back.
Two prospective randomized controlled trials.
Outpatient medical facility.
Sixty-seven subjects asymptomatic of back pain and in good general health (mean age, 23.5+/-6.6 y).
Participants performed vigorous eccentric exercise to experimentally induce low back DOMS. Participants were assigned to 1 of 2 substudies (prevention and treatment) and randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups within each substudy: prevention study (heat wrap, n=17; control [nontarget muscle stretch], n=18) and treatment study (heat wrap, n=16; cold pack, n=16). Interventions were administered 4 hours before and 4 hours after exercise in the prevention study and between hours 18 to 42 postexercise in the treatment study.
To coincide with the expected occurrence of peak symptoms related to exercise-induced low back DOMS, hour 24 postexercise was considered primary. Pain intensity (prevention) and pain relief (treatment) were primary measures, and self-reported physical function and disability were secondary measures.
In the prevention study, at hour 24 postexercise, pain intensity, disability, and deficits in self-reported physical function in subjects with the heat wrap were reduced by 47% (P<.001), 52.3% (P=.029), and 45% (P=.013), respectively, compared with the control group. At hour 24 in the treatment study, postexercise, pain relief with the heat wrap was 138% greater (P=.026) than with the cold pack; there were no differences between the groups in changes in self-reported physical function and disability.
In this small study, continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was of significant benefit in the prevention and early phase treatment of low back DOMS.

  • Source
    • "The biochemistry for DOMS involves multiple biological markers for tissue damage. Blood tests have shown elevation in muscle myoglobin, heat shock proteins 27 and 40, and interleukin-6 and interleukin-10 in subjects suffering from DOMS [8] [9] [10] [11]. Pain generally begins three hours after exercise, peaks from 24 to 72 h post-exercise, and fades over 5 to 7 d [13] [14]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessment of muscle damage relies commonly on subjective sensation of pain. The purpose of this research was to test the validity of microcurrent conductance on skin over injured tissue to quantify soft tissue injury and recovery following heavy exercise compared to other indexes of muscle soreness. A randomized, controlled, single-blinded, 1-week trial on 60 subjects. Setting-University Interventions: Subjects did 3 sets of squats for 5 min each. There were 3 groups of 20 subjects. One did nothing and one had heat applied for 8 h post exercise. The final group had heat 24 h after exercise. Tissue resistance and muscle strength force to move the knee, analog visual pain scale. In the control group, microcurrent continually decreased, eventually decreasing 32% by the third day post exercise. When heat was given immediately following exercise, microcurrent was 26% greater (P < 0.001). The pain scale rose to 3.1/10 as opposed to 5.4/10 for controls. Strength and muscle elasticity stayed mostly constant after heat as opposed to a 28% decrease in strength and increase in stiffness in the control subjects. For 24 h delayed heat, microcurrent was 14% greater (P < 0.02), and was unchanged for the first 24 h when no therapy was given. Pain scale rose to 4.8/10. Stiffness was unchanged while muscle strength decreased the same as controls. Microcurrent shows agreement with loss of strength, and stiffness from DOMS but not the subjective pain measure. It appears that microcurrent is a good measure of muscle damage.
    Journal of health science 08/2014; 2(11):353-362. · 0.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zielsetzung: Die Studie überprüft, ob Interferenzstrom den Muskelkater beeinflusst. Parameter: Schmerz, Kraft und Bewegungsausmaß. Methodik: Randomisierte, Placebo-kontrollierte Doppelblindstudie mit 60 Personen. 3 Grp. 1. Interferenzstrom, 2.Faradisationsstrom, 3. Placebogrp. Beidseitiger Muskelkater der Hüftabduktoren, Behandlung einer Seite. Applikation tägl. 20 Min. über 5 Tage. Auswertung mit Excel und SPSS. Ergebnisse: Schmerz, Kraft und die Adduktion zeigten keinen Unterschied. Bei einseitiger Abduktion hochsignifikante Vergrößerungen in der Faradisations- und Placebogruppe. Bei beidseitiger Abduktion alle Grp. hochsign. Amplitudenerhöhungen. Schlussfolgerungen: Interferenz hat keinen positiven Einfluss. Zusatzerkenntnis: Normmaße der Hüftadduktion sind diskussionswürdig. Von 120 Hüften erreichten nur 9 das Mindestmaß.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of to The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this supplement were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.
    The Spine Journal 01/2008; 8(1):96-113. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.09.008 · 2.80 Impact Factor
Show more