Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:16:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DeniseDA_DISSERT.pdf: 659589 bytes, checksum: a95e9f3f95d4524998e52ab9a5dd9577 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-04-13 / Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is described as anterior or retropatellar pain knee in the absence of other pathologies and is frequently associated with dysfunction of the vastus medialis oblique (VMO). However, several studies have demonstrated the inability to selectively activate this muscle through exercise. To evaluate the effect of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) selective VMO in women with syndrome. We evaluated thirty-eight women: twenty in the control group (24.15 ? 2.60 years) and eighteen diagnosed with PFPS (25.56 ? 3.55 years). Both groups were evaluated before and after a protocol of electro stimulation. To measure for comparing groups before and after treatment, we assessed the extensor torque concentric and eccentric knee through an isokinetic dynamometer, the intensity (Root Mean Square - RMS) and the onset of activation (onset) of VMO compared to the vastus lateralis (VL) in two types of exercise: open and closed kinetic chain. . Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 15.0, with a significance level of 5%. Results: Our data showed an increase in the intensity of activation (RMS) of the VMO muscle after NMES in both study groups. During concentric contraction the RMS of the VMO before the NMES was 105.69 ? 32.26 μV and after a single intervention was 122.10 ? 39.62 μV (p = 0.048) for the control group. In the group with PPS, we found a similar behavior, with RMS of the VMO before NMES of 96.25 ? 18.83 μV and 139.80 ? 65.88 μV after the intervention (p = 0.0001). However, there was no evidence in the RMS value of VL muscle. The onset was calculated by subtracting the onset of VL by the onset of VMO. For the group with PFPS, the onset before the intervention was -0.007 ? 0.14 ms, indicating a delay of the VMO relative to VL, and after NMES was 0.074 ? 0.09 ms (p = 0.016), showing an activation previous VMO to VL. The same occurred for the control group. We also observed that NMES increased knee extensor power during the concentric contraction in both groups. Before the intervention the mean power was 28.97 ? 9.01 W for the PPS group and after NMES was 34.38 ? 7.61 W (p = 0.0001). Conclusion: We observed an increase in electromyographic activity of the VMO and also an anticipatory effect of this muscle / A S?ndrome da Dor Femoropatelar (SDFP) ? freq?entemente associada ? disfun??o do Vasto Medial Obl?quo (VMO). Diversos estudos t?m demonstrado a impossibilidade de ativar seletivamente este m?sculo por meio de exerc?cios. Avaliar os efeitos de uma ?nica sess?o de Estimula??o El?trica Neuromuscular (EENM) seletiva do m?sculo VMO, em sujeitos com SDFP. Foram avaliadas 38 mulheres sendo 20 pertencentes ao grupo controle (24,15 ? 2,60 anos) e 18 com diagn?stico de SDFP (25,56 ? 3,55 anos). Ambos avaliados antes e ap?s um protocolo de eletroestimula??o. Para medida de compara??o dos grupos antes e depois do tratamento, foram avaliados, o desempenho isocin?tico, a intensidade de ativa??o muscular (Root Mean Square RMS) e o in?cio da ativa??o (onset) do VMO comparado ao vasto lateral (VL). Para an?lise estat?stica foi utilizado o programa SPSS 15.0, com um n?vel de signific?ncia de 5%. Resultados: Nossos dados mostraram um aumento na intensidade de ativa??o (RMS) do m?sculo VMO ap?s a EENM, em ambos os grupos de estudo. Durante a contra??o conc?ntrica o RMS do VMO antes da EENM foi 105,69 ? 32,26 μV e depois de uma ?nica interven??o foi de 122,10 ? 39,62 μV (p=0,048) para o grupo controle. No grupo com SDFP, encontramos um comportamento semelhante, com RMS do VMO antes da EENM de 96,25 ? 18,83 μV e 139,80 ? 65,88 μV depois da interven??o (p=0,0001). Entretanto, n?o foi evidenciada altera??o no valor RMS do m?sculo VL. O onset foi calculado atrav?s da subtra??o do onset do VL pelo onset do VMO. Para o grupo com SDFP, o onset antes da interven??o foi de -0,007 ? 0,14 ms, evidenciando um atraso do VMO em rela??o ao VL, e ap?s a EENM foi 0,074 ? 0,09 ms (p=0,016), mostrando uma ativa??o do VMO anterior ao VL. O mesmo ocorreu para o grupo controle. Observamos tamb?m que a EENM aumentou a pot?ncia extensora do joelho, durante a contra??o conc?ntrica em ambos os grupos. Antes da interven??o a m?dia da pot?ncia era de 28,97 ? 9,01 W para o grupo SDFP e depois da EENM foi de 34,38 ? 7,61 W (p=0,0001). Conclus?o: Observou-se um aumento na atividade eletromiogr?fica do VMO ap?s a eletroestimula??o, al?m de um efeito antecipat?rio deste m?sculo