Abstract: In this study, we investigated a new method of training for maximal strength and flexibility, which included exertion with superimposed vibration (vibratory stimulation, VS) on target muscles. Twenty-eight male athletes were divided into three groups, and trained three times a week for 3 weeks in one of the following conditions: (A) conventional exercises for strength of the arms and VS stretching exercises for the legs; (B) VS strength exercises for the arms and conventional stretching exercises for the legs; (C) irrelevant training (control group). The vibration was applied at 44 Hz while its amplitude was 3 mm. The effect of training was evaluated by means of isotonic maximal force, heel-to-heel length in the two-leg split across, and flex-and-reach test for body flexion. The VS strength training yielded an average increase in isotonic maximal strength of 49.8%, compared with an average gain of 16% with conventional training, while no gain was observed for the control group. The VS flexibility training resulted in an average gain in the legs split of 14.5 cm compared with 4.1 cm for the conventional training and 2 cm for the control groups, respectively. The ANOVA revealed significant pre-post training effects and an interaction between pre-post training and 'treatment' effects (P < 0.001) for the isotonic maximal force and both flexibility tests. It was concluded that superimposed vibrations applied for short periods allow for increased gains in maximal strength and flexibility.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture may result in poor sensorimotor knee control and, consequentially, adapted movement strategies to help maintain knee stability. Whether patients display atypical lower limb mechanics during weight acceptance of stair descent at different time frames after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the presence of atypical lower limb mechanics during the weight acceptance phase of stair descent among athletes at early, middle, and late time frames after unilateral ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 49 athletes with ACLR were classified into 3 groups according to time after ACLR-early (<6 months; n = 17), middle (6-18 months; n = 16), and late (>18 months; n = 16)-and compared with asymptomatic athletes (control; n = 18). Sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle angles; angular velocities; moments; and powers were compared between the ACLR groups' injured and noninjured legs and the control group as well as between legs within groups using functional data analysis methods. RESULTS: All 3 ACLR groups showed greater knee flexion angles and moments than the control group for injured and noninjured legs. For the other outcomes, the early group had, compared with the control group, less hip power absorption, more knee power absorption, lower ankle plantarflexion angle, lower ankle dorsiflexion moment, and less ankle power absorption for the injured leg and more knee power absorption and higher vertical ground reaction force for the noninjured leg. In addition, the late group showed differences from the control group for the injured leg revealing more knee power absorption and lower ankle plantarflexion angle. Only the early group took a longer time than the control group to complete weight acceptance and demonstrated asymmetry for multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Athletes with different time frames after ACLR revealed atypically large knee angles and moments during weight acceptance of stair descent for both the injured and the noninjured legs. These findings may express a chronically adapted strategy to increase knee control. In contrast, atypical hip and ankle mechanics seem restricted to an early time frame after ACLR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after ACLR should include early training in controlling weight acceptance. Including a control group is essential when evaluating movement patterns after ACLR because both legs may be affected.

Abstract: Purpose: Motor recovery of the upper limb (UL) is related to exercise intensity, defined as movement repetitions divided by minutes in active therapy, and task difficulty. However, the degree to which UL training in virtual reality (VR) applications deliver intense and challenging exercise and whether these factors are considered in different centres for people with different sensorimotor impairment levels is not evidenced. We determined if (1) a VR programme can deliver high UL exercise intensity in people with sub-acute stroke across different environments and (2) exercise intensity and difficulty differed among patients with different levels of UL sensorimotor impairment.Methods: Participants with sub-acute stroke (<6 months) with Fugl-Meyer scores ranging from 14 to 57, completed 10 approximately 50-min UL training sessions using three unilateral and one bilateral VR activity over 2 weeks in centres located in three countries. Training time, number of movement repetitions, and success rates were extracted from game activity logs. Exercise intensity was calculated for each participant, related to UL impairment, and compared between centres.Results: Exercise intensity was high and was progressed similarly in all centres. Participants had most difficulty with bilateral and lateral reaching activities. Exercise intensity was not, while success rate of only one unilateral activity was related to UL severity.Conclusion: The level of intensity attained with this VR exercise programme was higher than that reported in current stroke therapy practice. Although progression through different activity levels was similar between centres, clearer guidelines for exercise progression should be provided by the VR application.Implications for rehabilitationVR rehabilitation systems can be used to deliver intensive exercise programmes.VR rehabilitation systems need to be designed with measurable progressions through difficulty levels.