
Low-intensity microcurrent therapy promotes regeneration of atrophied calf muscles in immobilized rabbits
Gi Young Park, Dong Rak Kwon, Yong Suk Moon
Journal of Biomedical Research ›› 2019, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1) : 30-37.
Low-intensity microcurrent therapy promotes regeneration of atrophied calf muscles in immobilized rabbits
The purpose of this study was to investigate the intensity-specific regenerative effects of microcurrent therapy on gastrocnemius muscle atrophy induced by cast-immobilization in rabbits. Fifteen rabbits were randomly allocated to 3 groups after cast removal: cast-immobilization and sham microcurrent therapy for 2 weeks (group 1); cast-immobilization and microcurrent therapy (25 mA) for 2 weeks (group 2); cast-immobilization and microcurrent therapy (5,000 mA) for 2 weeks (group 3). Clinical parameters [calf circumference, compound muscle action potential (CMAP) of the tibial nerve, thickness of gastrocnemius muscle], cross sectional area of gastrocnemius muscle fibres, and immunohistochemistry was evaluated. The clinical parameters representing mean atrophic changes in group 2 were significantly lower than those in group 3. The cross sectional area of the gastrocnemius muscle fibres and immunohistochemical parameters in group 2 were significantly greater than those in group 3. The results showed that low-intensity microcurrent therapy can more effectively promote regeneration in atrophied gastrocnemius muscle than high-intensity microcurrent therapy.
microcurrent / intensity / atrophy / muscle / cast
Tab.1 Comparison of clinical parameters among three groups |
Group | Atrophic change (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Rt. calf muscle circumference | CMAP on Rt. tibial nerve | Rt. GCM muscle thickness on US | ||
Group 1 (n=5) | 33.68±1.09 a) | 30.90±1.01 a) | 32.98±1.44 a) | |
Group 2 (n=5) | 15.28±1.55 b) | 13.40±0.45 b) | 13.30±0.43 b) | |
Group 3 (n=5) | 18.16±0.40 c) | 14.10±0.27 c) | 14.10±0.59 c) |
Values are presented mean±standard error. Group 1: IC for 2 weeks and sham MT for 2 weeks after CR; Group 2: IC for 2 weeks and MT (25 mA) for 2 weeks after CR; Group 3: IC for 2 weeks and MT (5,000 mA) for 2 weeks after CR; IC: immobilization by cast; MT: microcurrent therapy; CR: cast removal; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; GCM: gastrocnemius muscle; US: ultrasound; a), b), c): Any two means in the same row with different letters represent a significant difference at P<0.05, One Way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey test. |
Tab.2 Comparison of the cross sectional area among three groups |
Group | Rt. GCM type 1 | |
---|---|---|
Medial | Lateral | |
Group 1 (n=5) | 260.46±17.86 a) | 262.51±14.31 a) |
Group 2 (n=5) | 822.37±19.76 b) | 870.43±21.57 b) |
Group 3 (n=5) | 675.11±16.91 c) | 684.06±32.80 c) |
Values are presented mean±standard error. Group 1: IC for 2 weeks and sham MT for 2 weeks after CR; Group 2: IC for 2 weeks and MT (25 mA) for 2 weeks after CR; Group 3: IC for 2 weeks and MT (5,000 mA) for 2 weeks after CR; IC: immobilization by cast; MT: microcurrent therapy; CR: cast removal; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; GCM: gastrocnemius muscle; US: ultrasound; a), b), c): Any two means in the same row with different letters represent a significant difference at P<0.05, One Way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey test. |
Tab.3 Comparison of PCNA and BrdU ratio in medial GCM and lateral GCM among three groups. |
Group | PCNA ratio | BrdU ratio | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Medial GCM | Lateral GCM | Medial GCM | Lateral GCM | |
Group 1 (n=5) | 0.070±0.018a) | 0.077±0.022a) | 0.050±0.014a) | 0.046±0.022a) |
Group 2 (n=5) | 0.190±0.039b) | 0.189±0.045b) | 0.096±0.011b) | 0.090±0.009b) |
Group 3 (n=5) | 0.145±0.024c) | 0.138±0.016c) | 0.075±0.015c) | 0.071±0014c) |
Values are presented mean±standard error. Group 1: IC for 2 weeks and sham MT for 2 weeks after CR; Group 2: IC for 2 weeks and MT (25 mA) for 2 weeks after CR; Group 3: IC for 2 weeks and MT (5,000 mA) for 2 weeks after CR; IC: immobilization by cast; MT: microcurrent therapy; CR: cast removal; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; GCM: gastrocnemius muscle; US: ultrasound; a), b), c: Any two means in the same row with different letters represent a significant difference at P<0.05, One Way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey test. |
[1] |
Barreiro E, Bustamante V, Cejudo P,
Pubmed
|
[2] |
Chacon-Cabrera A, Gea J, Barreiro E. Short- and long-term hindlimb immobilization and reloading: Profile of epigenetic events in gastrocnemius[J]. J Cell Physiol, 2017, 232(6): 1415–1427
Pubmed
|
[3] |
Gossman MR, Rose SJ, Sahrmann SA,
Pubmed
|
[4] |
Michelsson JE, Aho HJ, Kalimo H,
Pubmed
|
[5] |
Edgerton VR, Roy RR, Allen DL,
Pubmed
|
[6] |
Thomason DB, Booth FW. Atrophy of the soleus muscle by hindlimb unweighting[J]. J Appl Physiol (1985), 1990, 68(1): 1–12
Pubmed
|
[7] |
Armand AS, Laziz I, Djeghloul D,
Pubmed
|
[8] |
Best TM, Hunter KD. Muscle injury and repair[J]. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am, 2000, 11(2): 251–266
Pubmed
|
[9] |
Grounds MD. Muscle regeneration: molecular aspects and therapeutic implications[J]. Curr Opin Neurol, 1999, 12(5): 535–543
Pubmed
|
[10] |
Hill M, Wernig A, Goldspink G. Muscle satellite (stem) cell activation during local tissue injury and repair[J]. J Anat, 2003, 203(1): 89–99
Pubmed
|
[11] |
Morioka S, Goto K, Kojima A,
Pubmed
|
[12] |
Matsuba Y, Goto K, Morioka S,
Pubmed
|
[13] |
Moon YS, Kwon DR, Lee YJ. Therapeutic effect of microcurrent on calf muscle atrophy in immobilised rabbit[J]. Muscle Nerve, 2018, 58(2): 270–276.
|
[14] |
Cheng N, Van Hoof H, Bockx E,
Pubmed
|
[15] |
Fujiya H, Ogura Y, Ohno Y,
Pubmed
|
[16] |
Zickri MB. Possible local stem cells activation by microcurrent application in experimentally injured soleus muscle[J]. Int J Stem Cells, 2014, 7(2): 79–86
Pubmed
|
[17] |
Dirks ML, Wall BT, Snijders T,
Pubmed
|
[18] |
Dirks ML, Hansen D, Van Assche A,
Pubmed
|
[19] |
Kauhanen S, von Boguslawsky K, Michelsson JE,
Pubmed
|
[20] |
Akai M, Shirasaki Y, Tateishi T. Electrical stimulation on joint contracture: an experiment in rat model with direct current[J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1997, 78(4): 405–409
Pubmed
|
[21] |
Lin Y, Nishimura R, Nozaki K,
Pubmed
|
[22] |
Nessler JP, Mass DP. Direct-current electrical stimulation of tendon healing in vitro[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1987, (217): 303–312
Pubmed
|
[23] |
Dunn SM. Multiple calcium channels in synaptosomes: voltage dependence of 1,4-dihydropyridine binding and effects on function[J]. Biochemistry, 1988, 27(14): 5275–5281
Pubmed
|
[24] |
Poltawski L, Johnson M, Watson T. Microcurrent therapy in the management of chronic tennis elbow: pilot studies to optimize parameters[J]. Physiother Res Int, 2012, 17(3): 157–166
Pubmed
|
[25] |
Brown MD, Cotter MA, Hudlická O,
Pubmed
|
[26] |
Lambert MI, Marcus P, Burgess T,
Pubmed
|
[27] |
Mäenpää H, Jaakkola R, Sandström M,
Pubmed
|
[28] |
Curtis D, Fallows S, Morris M,
Pubmed
|
[29] |
Byl NN, McKenzie AL, West JM,
Pubmed
|
[30] |
Farmer SE, James M. Contractures in orthopaedic and neurological conditions: a review of causes and treatment[J]. Disabil Rehabil, 2001, 23(13): 549–558
Pubmed
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |