These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Examination of Intramuscular and Skin Temperature Decreases Produced by the PowerPlay Intermittent Compression Cryotherapy.
    Author: Ostrowski J, Purchio A, Beck M, Leisinger J, Tucker M, Hurst S.
    Journal: J Sport Rehabil; 2018 May 01; 27(3):244-248. PubMed ID: 28422604.
    Abstract:
    CONTEXT: Previous research has found ice bags are more effective at lowering intramuscular temperature than gel packs. Recent studies have evaluated intramuscular temperature cooling decreases with ice bag versus Game Ready and with the PowerPlay system wetted ice bag inserts; however, intramuscular temperature decreases elicited by PowerPlay with the standard frozen gel pack inserts have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the rate and magnitude of cooling using PowerPlay with frozen gel pack (PP-gel) option, PowerPlay with wetted ice bag (PP-ice) option, and control (no treatment) on skin and intramuscular temperature (2 cm subadipose). DESIGN: Repeated-measures counterbalanced study. SETTING: University research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twelve healthy college-aged participants (4 men and 8 women; age = 23.08 (1.93) y, height = 171.66 (9.47) cm, mass = 73.67 (13.46) kg, and subcutaneous thickness = 0.90 (0.35) cm). INTERVENTION(S): PowerPlay (70 mm Hg) with either wetted ice bag or frozen gel pack was applied to posterior aspect of nondominant calf for 30 minutes; control lay prone for 30 minutes. Participants underwent each treatment in counterbalanced order (minimum 4 d, maximum 10 d between). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Muscle temperature was measured via 21-gauge catheter thermocouple (IT-21; Physitemp Instruments, Inc). Skin temperature was measured via surface thermocouple (SST-1; Physitemp Instruments, Inc). RESULTS: Significant treatment-by-time interaction for muscle cooling (F10,80 = 11.262, P = .01, [Formula: see text], observed β = 0.905) was observed. PP-ice cooled faster than both PP-gel and control from minutes 12 to 30 (all Ps < .05); PP-gel cooled faster than control from minutes 18 to 30 (all Ps < .05). Mean decreases from baseline: PP-ice = 4.8°C (2.8°C), PP-gel = 2.3°C (0.8°C), and control = 1.1°C (0.4°C). Significant treatment-by-time interaction for skin cooling (F10,80 = 23.920, P = .001, [Formula: see text], observed β = 0.998) was observed. PP-ice cooled faster than both PP-gel and control from minutes 6 to 30 (all Ps < .05); PP-gel cooled faster than control from minutes 12 to 30 (all Ps < .05). Mean decreases from baseline: PP-ice = 14.6°C (4.8°C), PP-gel = 4.0°C (0.9°C), and control = 1.0°C (1.0°C). CONCLUSIONS: PP-ice produces clinically and statistically greater muscle and skin cooling compared with PP-gel and control.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]