Neuromodulation in Professional Dancers
One-Shot Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation vs. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Performance Flexor Hallucis Longus Muscle in Professional Dancers
1 other identifier
interventional
51
1 country
1
Brief Summary
Tendinopathy of the flexor hallucis longus (FHL), colloquially referred to as "dancer's tendinitis," is a common condition in dancers and attributed to high demand on this muscle in positions of extreme ankle plantarflexion and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) flexion and extension. Tradicional conservative treatment includes rest from pain-inducing activities including pointe work and jumping, physical therapy a focusing on movilization of the joints of the first ray and subtalar joint, and antiinflamatory medications. Unfortunately, dancer frecuently do not follow recommendations to rest due to the competitive nature of the field. Those who do not respond to conservative treatment undergo more serious interventions including steroid injections or surgery, each with additional risks and recovery time. To develop experimental protocols aimed at prevention and nonsurgical interventions are needed. Therefore, the aim of this study was To investigate the effects of one shot of low-frequency percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) vs. one shot of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in performance of the Flexor Hallucis Longus muscle in young dancers.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable
Started Jul 2018
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
July 11, 2018
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
July 23, 2018
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
July 24, 2018
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
July 24, 2018
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
August 17, 2018
CompletedNovember 5, 2019
November 1, 2019
Same day
July 11, 2018
November 2, 2019
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (3)
Change in balance
Assessed by a single leg balance test
1 day
Change in muscular endurence,
Assessed by endurance test (heel raise repetitions).
1 day
Change in range of motion of first MTF joint
Assessed using goniometer.
1 day
Study Arms (2)
Percutaneous Electrial Stimulation (PES group).
EXPERIMENTALThis intervention consisted in the application of an asymmetric biphasic rectangular current. The subject lay prone with her feet outside the table. The FHL muscle was located at 50% of the distance between the fibular head and inferior border of the lateral malleolus on the posterior aspect of the fibular by ultrasound machine (cross-section) (Logiq, GE Healthcare, USA) and then, a needle (0.30mm x 0.40mm) was inserted, perpendicular to the surface of the skin, until the muscle belly. Prior to inserting a neddle, the underlying skin was cleaned with isopropyl alcohol. The intensity of the current was necessary to cause an exacerbated muscle contraction, during 1.5 min acording to the Valera and Minaya protocol´s. This intervention was performed once in each participant, on one leg only (stance limb), It's only once, it was not a treatment
Transcutaneous Electrial Stimulation (TENS group)
EXPERIMENTALThis intervention consisted in the application of an asymmetric biphasic rectangular current. The subject lay prone with her feet outside the table. The FHL muscle was located at 50% of the distance between the fibular head and inferior border of the lateral malleolus on the posterior aspect of the fibular by ultrasound machine (cross-section) (Logiq, GE Healthcare, USA),and then, one self-adhesive electrode was placed on the back of the leg and the other on the sole of the foot. The intensity of the current was necessary to cause an exacerbated muscle contraction, during 1.5 min. This intervention was performed once in each participant, on one leg only (stance limb), It's only once, it was not a treatment
Interventions
This intervention consisted in the application of an asymmetric biphasic rectangular current of 150 microseconds and 10 Hz using a specifically developed medically certified device (Physio Invasive, Enraf Nonius, Prim, SPAIN). This is an invasive intervention by ultrasound and needles.
This intervention consisted in the application of an asymmetric biphasic rectangular current of 150 microseconds and 10 Hz using a specifically developed medically certified device (Physio Invasive, Enraf Nonius, Prim, SPAIN). This is a non-invasive intervention by self-adhesive electrodes.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Female dancers
- Training at least twenty-five hours per week
- Pointe training at least five hours per week.
You may not qualify if:
- They had sustained an injury to their stance limb in the past year preventing dancing for at least 1 day
- Personal Psychological Apprehension Scale (PPAS) score \>37.5
- Commonly accepted contraindications to invasive phsyiotherapist technique
- Any contraindications to needling per se.
- Commonly accepted contraindications to electrotherapy
- Epilepsy.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Blanca de La Cruz Torres
Seville, 41010, Spain
Related Publications (1)
de-la-Cruz-Torres B, Barrera-Garcia-Martin I, Romero-Morales C. Comparative Effects of One-Shot Electrical Stimulation on Performance of the Flexor Hallucis Longus Muscle in Professional Dancers: Percutaneous Versus Transcutaneous? Neuromodulation. 2020 Aug;23(6):865-870. doi: 10.1111/ner.13040. Epub 2019 Aug 25.
PMID: 31448488BACKGROUND
MeSH Terms
Interventions
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- STUDY CHAIR
Blanca De la Cruz Torres, Dr
University of Seville
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- DOUBLE
- Who Masked
- INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Doctor
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
July 11, 2018
First Posted
July 23, 2018
Study Start
July 24, 2018
Primary Completion
July 24, 2018
Study Completion
August 17, 2018
Last Updated
November 5, 2019
Record last verified: 2019-11