Effects of Local Vibration With Different Intermittent Durations on Skin Blood Flow Responses in Diabetic People
Effects of Local Vibration With Different Intermittent Durations on Skin Blood Flow Responses in Diabetic People
复制标题
不同间歇时间的局部振动对糖尿病患者皮肤血流反应的影响
DOI：
10.3389/fbioe.2019.00310
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-05
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Jan, Yih-Kuen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ren, Weiyan;Pu, Fang;Jan, Yih-Kuen
目的：血供不足是导致糖尿病足溃疡发生和恶化的重要病理因素。本研究旨在探讨不同间歇时间的局部振动对糖尿病患者和健康人足底皮肤血流量(SBF)反应的急性影响。方法：11例糖尿病患者(男7例，女4例)和15例健康成人(男6例，女9例)接受了3次测试。在每一次测试中，每个受试者的右足中跖头随机施加局部连续振动(LCV)和两种水平的局部间歇振动(LIV1和LIV2)。在每次测试的干预前(基线)、振动期间和恢复阶段测量SBF。比较分析糖尿病患者和健康受试者各阶段的平均SBF、振动期和恢复期SBF的变化率和变化率。结果：糖尿病患者在局部间歇性振动(LIV1和LIV2)时，SBF在振动期和恢复期均显著增加，但在LCV时无明显变化。然而，糖尿病受试者在三项测试中SBF的变化百分比和变化率没有显著差异。对于健康受试者，在振动期和恢复期的前1.5分钟，所有的振动干预都显著增加了SBF。健康受试者LIV1试验振动期SBF变化率显著大于LIV2试验。糖尿病患者LIV1试验振动期和LIV1、LIV2试验部分恢复期SBF变化率均低于健康人，LIV1试验SBF绝对值变化率也低于健康人。结论：LIV1和LIV2均可有效改善糖尿病患者足部的SBF，但LCV可能达不到相同程度的血管扩张。研究还发现，糖尿病受试者对外加振动的SBF反应也低于健康受试者。
Objective: Poor blood flow supply is an important pathological factor that leads to the development and deterioration of diabetic foot ulcers. This study aims to investigate the acute effects of local vibration with varying intermittent durations on the plantar skin blood flow (SBF) response in diabetic and healthy subjects. Methods: Eleven diabetic patients (7 males, 4 females) and 15 healthy adults (6 males, 9 females) participated in this experiment and accepted three tests. Local continuous vibration (LCV) and two levels of local intermittent vibration (LIV1 and LIV2) were randomly applied to the middle metatarsal head of each subject's right foot in each test. The SBF was measured prior to intervention (Baseline), during Vibration and during the Recovery Stage for each test. The mean SBF in each stage, the change percentages and change rates of SBF in Vibration and Recovery stage among three tests were compared and analyzed for both diabetic and healthy subjects. Results: For diabetic subjects, the SBF was significantly increased in both Vibration and Recovery Stage with local intermittent vibrations (LIV1 and LIV2), but not with LCV. However, there was no significant difference in change percentage and change rate of SBF in diabetic subjects across the three tests. For healthy subjects, all vibration interventions significantly increased the SBF in the Vibration Stage and in the first 1.5 min of the Recovery Stage. Also, the change rate of SBF during the Vibration stage in LIV1 test was significantly greater than that in LIV2 test for healthy subjects. Moreover, change percentage of SBF in Vibration stage of LIV1 test and in some periods of Recovery stages of LIV1 and LIV2 tests for diabetic subjects were lower than for healthy subjects; the absolute change rate of SBF in LIV1 test for diabetic subjects was also lower than for healthy subjects. Conclusion: These findings suggest that both LIV1 and LIV2 may effectively improve SBF in the feet of diabetic people, but LCV may not achieve the same level of vasodilatation. The diabetic subjects were also found to have a lower SBF response to applied vibration than the healthy subjects.