Cargando…
Muscle oxygenation in Type 1 diabetic and non-diabetic patients with and without chronic compartment syndrome
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetic patients and non-diabetic patients were referred for evaluation for chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) based on clinical examination and complaints of activity-related leg pain in the region of the tibialis anterior muscle. Previous studies using near-infrared...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5653333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29059243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186790 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetic patients and non-diabetic patients were referred for evaluation for chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) based on clinical examination and complaints of activity-related leg pain in the region of the tibialis anterior muscle. Previous studies using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) showed greater deoxygenation during exercise for CECS patients versus healthy controls; however, this comparison has not been done for diabetic CECS patients. METHODS: We used NIRS to test for differences in oxygenation kinetics for Type 1 diabetic patients diagnosed with (CECS-diabetics, n = 9) versus diabetic patients without (CON-diabetics, n = 10) leg anterior chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Comparisons were also made between non-diabetic CECS patients (n = 11) and healthy controls (CON, n = 10). The experimental protocol consisted of thigh arterial cuff occlusion (AO, 1-minute duration), and treadmill running to reproduce symptoms. NIRS variables generated were resting StO(2)%, and oxygen recovery following AO. Also, during and following treadmill running the magnitude of deoxygenation and oxygen recovery, respectively, were determined. RESULTS: There was no difference in resting StO(2)% between CECS-diabetics (78.2±12.6%) vs. CON-diabetics (69.1±20.8%), or between CECS (69.3±16.2) vs. CON (75.9±11.2%). However, oxygen recovery following AO was significantly slower for CECS (1.8±0.8%/sec) vs. CON (3.8±1.7%/sec) (P = 0.002); these data were not different between the diabetic groups. StO(2)% during exercise was lower (greater deoxygenation) for CECS-diabetics (6.3±8.6%) vs. CON-diabetics (40.4±22.0%), and for CECS (11.3±16.8%) vs. CON (34.1±21.2%) (P<0.05 for both). The rate of oxygen recovery post exercise was faster for CECS-diabetics (3.5±2.6%/sec) vs. CON-diabetics (1.4±0.8%/sec) (P = 0.04), and there was a tendency of difference for CECS (3.1±1.4%/sec) vs. CON (1.9±1.3%/sec) (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The greater deoxygenation during treadmill running for the CECS-diabetics group (vs. CON-diabetics) is in line with previous studies (and with the present study) that compared non-diabetic CECS patients with healthy controls. Our findings could suggest that NIRS may be useful as a diagnostic tool for assessing Type 1 diabetic patients suspected of CECS. |
---|