PURPOSE: For wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury, the lower body may be a more convenient cooling site than the upper body. However, it remains unknown if leg cooling reduces thermal strain in these individuals. We compared the impact of upper-body versus lower-body cooling on physiological and perceptual outcomes during submaximal arm-crank exercise under heat stress in individuals with paraplegia. METHODS: Twelve male participants with paraplegia (T4-L2, 50% complete lesion) performed a maximal exercise test in temperate conditions, and three heat stress tests (32°C, 40% relative humidity) in which they received upper-body cooling (COOL-UB), lower-body cooling (COOL-LB), or no cooling (CON) in a randomized counterbalanced order. Each heat stress test consisted of four exercise blocks of 15 min at 50% of peak power output, with 3 min of rest in between. Cooling was applied using water-perfused pads, with 14.8-m tubing in both COOL-UB and COOL-LB. RESULTS: Gastrointestinal temperature was 0.2°C (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.1°C to 0.3°C) lower during exercise in COOL-UB versus CON (37.5°C ± 0.4°C vs 37.7°C ± 0.3°C, P = 0.009), with no difference between COOL-LB and CON ( P = 1.0). Heart rate was lower in both COOL-UB (-7 bpm; 95% CI, -11 to -3 bpm; P = 0.01) and COOL-LB (-5 bpm; 95% CI, -9 to -1 bpm; P = 0.049) compared with CON. The skin temperature reduction at the cooled skin sites was larger in COOL-LB (-10.8°C ± 1.1°C) than in COOL-UB (-6.7°C ± 1.4°C, P < 0.001), which limited the cooling capacity in COOL-LB. Thermal sensation of the cooled skin sites was improved and overall thermal discomfort was lower in COOL-UB ( P = 0.01 and P = 0.04) but not in COOL-LB ( P = 0.17 and P = 0.59) compared with CON. CONCLUSIONS: Upper-body cooling more effectively reduced thermal strain than lower-body cooling in individuals with paraplegia, as it induced greater thermophysiological and perceptual benefits.

Background: After latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT), an increase in scapulothoracic (ST) contribution in thoracohumeral (TH) elevation is observed when compared to the asymptomatic shoulder. It is not known which shoulder muscles contribute to this change in shoulder kinematics, and whether the timing of muscle recruitment has altered after LDT. The aim of the study was to identify which shoulder muscles and what timing of muscle recruitment are responsible for the increased ST contribution and shoulder elevation after LDT for a massive irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tear (MIRT). Methods: Thirteen patients with a preoperative pseudoparalysis and MIRT were recruited after LDT with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Three-dimensional electromagnetic tracking was used to assess maximum active elevation of the shoulder (MAES) in both the LDT and the asymptomatic contralateral shoulder (ACS). Surface electromyography (EMG) tracked activation (% EMG max) and activation timing of the latissimus dorsi (LD), deltoid, teres major, trapezius (upper, middle and lower) and serratus anterior muscles were collected. MAES was studied in forward flexion, scapular abduction and abduction in the coronal plane. Results: In MAES, no difference in thoracohumeral motion was observed between the LDT and ACS, P = .300. However, the glenohumeral motion for MAES was significantly lower in LDT shoulders F(1,12) = 11.230, P = .006. The LD % EMG max did not differ between the LDT and ACS in MAES. A higher % EMG max was found for the deltoid F(1,12) = 17.241, P = .001, and upper trapezius F(1,10) = 13.612, P = .004 in the LDT shoulder during MAES. The middle trapezius only showed a higher significant difference in % EMG max for scapular abduction, P = .020 (LDT, 52.3 ± 19.4; ACS, 38.1 ± 19.7).The % EMG max of the lower trapezius, serratus anterior and teres major did not show any difference in all movement types between the LDT and ACS and no difference in timing of recruitment of all the shoulder muscles was observed. Conclusions: After LDT in patients with a MIRT and preoperative pseudoparalysis, the LD muscle did not alter its % EMG max during MAES when compared to the ACS. The cranial transfer of the LD tendon with its native %EMG max, together with the increased %EMG max of the deltoid, middle and upper trapezius muscles could be responsible for the increased ST contribution. The increased glenohumeral joint reaction force could in turn increase active elevation after LDT in a previous pseudoparalytic shoulder.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the thoracohumeral (TH) and glenohumeral (GH) motion with muscle activity after latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in a shoulder with a massive irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tear (MIRT) and pseudoparalysis compared with the asymptomatic contralateral shoulder (ACS). Methods: We recruited and evaluated 13 patients after LDT in a shoulder with preoperative clinical pseudoparalysis and an MIRT on magnetic resonance imaging, with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year, and with a Hamada stage of 3 or less. Three-dimensional electromagnetic tracking was used to assess shoulder active range of motion in both the LDT shoulder and the ACS. The maximal active elevation of the shoulder (MAES) was assessed and consisted of forward flexion, scapular abduction, and abduction in the coronal plane. Maximal active internal rotation and external rotation were assessed separately. Surface electromyography (EMG) was performed to track activation of the latissimus dorsi (LD) and deltoid muscles during shoulder motion. EMG was scaled to its maximal isometric voluntary contraction recorded in specified strength tests. Results: In MAES, TH motion of the LDT shoulder was not significantly different from that of the ACS (F_1,12 = 1.174, P = .300) but the GH contribution was significantly lower in the LDT shoulder for all motions (F_1,12 = 11.230, P = .006). External rotation was significantly greater in the ACS (26° ± 10° in LDT shoulder vs. 42° ± 11° in ACS, P < .001). The LD percentage EMG maximum showed no significant difference between the LDT shoulder and ACS during MAES (F_1,11 = 0.005, P = .946). During maximal active external rotation of the shoulder, the LDT shoulder showed a higher percentage EMG maximum than the ACS (3.0% ± 2.9% for LDT shoulder vs. 1.2% ± 2.0% for ACS, P = .006). Conclusions: TH motion improved after LDT in an MIRT with pseudoparalysis and was not different from the ACS except for external rotation. However, GH motion was significantly lower after LDT than in the ACS in active-elevation range of motion. The LD was active after LDT but not more than in the ACS except for active external rotation, which we did not consider relevant as the activity did not rise above 3% EMG maximum. The favorable clinical results of LDT do not seem to be related to a change in LD activation and might be explained by its effect in preventing proximal migration of the humeral head in active elevation.