Response of skin surface temperature to an application of high voltage pulsed galvanic current (HVPGC) as a treatment method for sports injuries

Graduation date: 1985Ankle injuries account for 10-20% of time loss injuries in sports\ud with almost 85% of these injuries being sprains, the majority of\ud which occur to the lateral ligamentous complex. With statistics such\ud as these it becomes important that the Athletic Trainer establish a\ud method for effective and efficient means to safely rehabilitate\ud injuries. This study was designed to measure the response of skin\ud surface temperature to an application of high voltage pulsed galvanic\ud current (HVPGC). Three hypotheses were tested in this study:\ud 1 ) No significant difference would exist in skin surface\ud temperature response as a result of applying ice or applying\ud ice plus HVPGC.\ud 2) No significant difference would exist in skin surface\ud temperature response patterns over a span of 30 minutes as a\ud result of the application of ice or ice plus H4PGC.\ud 3) No significant difference would exist in skin surface\ud temperature response patterns of male and female subjects\ud over a span of 30 minutes as a result of the application of\ud ice or ice plus HVPGC.\ud Twenty-two healthy adult subjects volunteered to participate in\ud this study. A repeated measures design was used with each subject\ud being tested under each of the testing conditions: 1) a slush bucket\ud cooled to 1-2°C and 2) a slush bucket cooled to 1-2°C with the\ud introduction of a positive polarity HVPGC of 80 pulses per second.\ud Each testing condition was administered one time for 30 minutes with\ud a one week minimun time period between testing conditions. Skin\ud surface temperatures were measured every 2.5 minutes from time 0\ud through time 30 minutes.\ud An analysis of variance was computed using the treatment\ud conditions and time (0.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5,\ud 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 27.5, and 30.0 minutes) as the independent\ud variables. When a significant difference between variables was\ud determined a Scheffe test was conducted to determine significant\ud difference in each testing condition at selected points in time.\ud Within the limitations of this study is was concluded:\ud 1) No significant difference existed in skin temperature\ud response as a result of applying ice or ice plus HVPGC.\ud 2) No significant difference existed in skin surface\ud temperature response patterns over a span of 30 minutes as a\ud result of the application of ice or ice plus HVPGC.\ud 3) No significant difference existed in skin surface\ud temperature response patterns of male and female subjects\ud over a span of 30 minutes as a result of the application of\ud ice or ice plus HVPGC