Electromyographyc evaluation of movements of lower limb in double pulley system equipment: Comparison between gastrocnemius (caput laterale) and gluteus maximus

It was evaluated movements of lower limb in the double pulley system equipment on ten male volunteers during contraction of gastrocnemius (caput laterale ) and gluteus maximus muscles in the following movements: 1) hip extension with extended knee and erect trunk, 2) hip extension with flexed knee and erect trunk, 3) hip extension with flexed knee and erect trunk, 3) hip extension with extended knee and inclined trunk, 5) hip abduction along the midline, 7) hip abduction with extension beyond the midline, 8) adduction with hip flexion beyond the midline, 8) adduction with hip flexion beyond the midline, and 9) adduction with hip extension beyond the midline. Myoelectric signals were taken up by Lec Tec surface electrodes connected to a 6-channel Lynx electromyographic signal amplifier coupled with a computer equipped with a model CAD 10/26 analogue digital conversion board and with a specific software for signal recording and analysis. We observed weak gastrocnemius muscle activity for all movements studied. In the case of gluteus maximus, the most important potentials were observed for movement 2, while for the remaining movements the actions were of reasonable intensity. Compared to gluteus, gastrocnemius was less required for all movements.

Comparative Analysis of 2 Techniques of Double-Gloving Protection During Arch Bar Placement for Intermaxillary Fixation

Purpose: This study was conducted to comparatively evaluate, in a prospective and randomized manner, 2 techniques for providing double-gloving protection during arch bar placement for intermaxillary fixation. Materials and Methods: A total of 42 consecutive patients in whom application of an Erich bar was indicated for intermaxillary fixation were equally divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 2 sterile surgical gloves were used; in group 2, a nonsterile disposable inner glove was used under a sterile surgical glove. Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and binomial statistical tests were used to analyze the findings. Results: A total of 103 perforations were found in the outer gloves (47 in group 1 and 56 in group 2), along with 5 perforations in inner gloves in both groups (α = .01). No significant statistical difference was found between groups in terms of inner glove perforations (α = .05). The nondominant hand presented with 70.9% of the perforations, statistically significant to 1%. Conclusions: Both double-gloving techniques were found to provide effective clinician protection. The use of a nonsterile disposable glove under the surgical glove is possible for less-invasive procedures, offering the same safety as using 2 sterile surgical gloves while decreasing operational costs. This method does not eliminate the need to change gloves when a perforation is suspected or noted during the surgery, however. © 2007 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.