AI Article Synopsis

  • This study examined how two levels of low-intensity vibration training (0.6 g and 1.0 g) affected muscle and bone recovery in mice after a muscle injury known as volumetric muscle loss (VML).
  • Mice were divided into groups receiving either no treatment or varying levels of vibration training for 15 minutes a day over 8 weeks post-injury.
  • Results showed that bone structure improved with vibration training, particularly at the 1.0 g level, while muscle function showed less significant enhancement, suggesting that vibration training may be more beneficial for bone recovery than for muscle after VML.

Article Abstract

This study's objective was to investigate the extent to which two different levels of low-intensity vibration training (0.6 g or 1.0 g) affected musculoskeletal structure and function after a volumetric muscle loss (VML) injury in male C57BL/6J mice. All mice received a unilateral VML injury to the posterior plantar flexors. Mice were randomized into a control group (no vibration; VML-noTX), or one of two experimental groups. The two experimental groups received vibration training for 15-min/day, 5-days/week for 8 weeks at either 0.6 g (VML-0.6 g) or 1.0 g (VML-1.0 g) beginning 3-days after induction of VML. Muscles were analyzed for contractile and metabolic adaptations. Tibial bone mechanical properties and geometric structure were assessed by a three-point bending test and microcomputed tomography (µCT). Body mass-normalized peak isometric-torque was 18% less in VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.030). There were no statistically significant differences of vibration intervention on contractile power or muscle oxygen consumption (p ≥ 0.191). Bone ultimate load, but not stiffness, was ~16% greater in tibias of VML-1.0 g mice compared with those from VML-noTx mice (p = 0.048). Cortical bone volume was ~12% greater in tibias of both vibration groups compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.003). Importantly, cross-section moment of inertia, the primary determinant of bone ultimate load, was 44% larger in tibias of VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.006). These changes indicate that following VML, bones are more responsive to the selected vibration training parameters than muscle. Vibration training represents a possible adjuvant intervention to address bone deficits following VML.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.26023DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

vibration training
20
compared vml-notx
16
vml-notx mice
16
mice compared
12
mice
10
vibration
8
volumetric muscle
8
muscle loss
8
vml injury
8
experimental groups
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!