Muscle strain injuries affect a wide range of physically active people around the world and are reaching epidemic proportions. Despite the variety of treatment options available in rehabilitation, there are no clear guidelines for electrical stimulation that provide effective reproducible results that address the underlying cause of these injuries. For instance, electrotherapy is inefficient at stimulating muscles, because of imprecise parameters and an ability to target particular muscles. The difference between this study and previous research is the precise delivery of electrical stimulation (intramuscular) at two different frequencies (2 Hz and 50 Hz) and comparing it a control group. Objective: To determine the difference on muscle strength and functional status between three treatments modalities for sub acute and chronic hamstring strains. Design: A randomized experimental design was used to compare the effects of low (2 Hz), high (50 Hz) and no-electrical (control) intramuscular stimulation on muscle strength and mental and functional status (AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX). Each group consisted of 18 subjects. Main Outcome: The difference in treatment modalities was evaluated by comparing the muscle strength test (Biodex Dynamometer) results and the AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX results in pretest and post-test conditions. Results: The AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX, but not muscle strength test (Biodex), changed significantly after 2-Hz electrical intramuscular stimulation (pre-test µ = 66.56, Std= 11.92, post-test µ= 92.89, Std= 6.25), whereas no statistically significant changes in health status index and muscle strength test occurred with 50-Hz (pre-test = 69.22, Std= 11.31, post-test µ= 70.22, Std= 12.27)) and no-electrical stimulation groups (pre-test µ= 69.11, post-test µ= 73.39, Std= 13.18).

Muscle strain injuries affect a wide range of physically active people around the world and are reaching epidemic proportions. Despite the variety of treatment options available in rehabilitation, there are no clear guidelines for electrical stimulation that provide effective reproducible results that address the underlying cause of these injuries. For instance, electrotherapy is inefficient at stimulating muscles, because of imprecise parameters and an ability to target particular muscles. The difference between this study and previous research is the precise delivery of electrical stimulation (intramuscular) at two different frequencies (2 Hz and 50 Hz) and comparing it a control group. Objective: To determine the difference on muscle strength and functional status between three treatments modalities for sub acute and chronic hamstring strains. Design: A randomized experimental design was used to compare the effects of low (2 Hz), high (50 Hz) and no-electrical (control) intramuscular stimulation on muscle strength and mental and functional status (AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX). Each group consisted of 18 subjects. Main Outcome: The difference in treatment modalities was evaluated by comparing the muscle strength test (Biodex Dynamometer) results and the AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX results in pretest and post-test conditions. Results: The AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX, but not muscle strength test (Biodex), changed significantly after 2-Hz electrical intramuscular stimulation (pre-test µ = 66.56, Std= 11.92, post-test µ= 92.89, Std= 6.25), whereas no statistically significant changes in health status index and muscle strength test occurred with 50-Hz (pre-test = 69.22, Std= 11.31, post-test µ= 70.22, Std= 12.27)) and no-electrical stimulation groups (pre-test µ= 69.11, post-test µ= 73.39, Std= 13.18).

Muscle strain injuries affect a wide range of physically active people around the world and are reaching epidemic proportions. Despite the variety of treatment options available in rehabilitation, there are no clear guidelines for electrical stimulation that provide effective reproducible results that address the underlying cause of these injuries. For instance, electrotherapy is inefficient at stimulating muscles, because of imprecise parameters and an ability to target particular muscles. The difference between this study and previous research is the precise delivery of electrical stimulation (intramuscular) at two different frequencies (2 Hz and 50 Hz) and comparing it a control group. Objective: To determine the difference on muscle strength and functional status between three treatments modalities for sub acute and chronic hamstring strains. Design: A randomized experimental design was used to compare the effects of low (2 Hz), high (50 Hz) and no-electrical (control) intramuscular stimulation on muscle strength and mental and functional status (AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX). Each group consisted of 18 subjects. Main Outcome: The difference in treatment modalities was evaluated by comparing the muscle strength test (Biodex Dynamometer) results and the AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX results in pretest and post-test conditions. Results: The AMSMC HEALTH STATUS INDEX, but not muscle strength test (Biodex), changed significantly after 2-Hz electrical intramuscular stimulation (pre-test µ = 66.56, Std= 11.92, post-test µ= 92.89, Std= 6.25), whereas no statistically significant changes in health status index and muscle strength test occurred with 50-Hz (pre-test = 69.22, Std= 11.31, post-test µ= 70.22, Std= 12.27)) and no-electrical stimulation groups (pre-test µ= 69.11, post-test µ= 73.39, Std= 13.18). / Education, Faculty of / Kinesiology, School of / Graduate