Author: Lucy Spain1, Lang Yang1, J Mark Wilkinson1, Eugene McCloskey2
1 Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Metabolic Bone Centre, Sorby Wing, EU14, E Floor, The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX; NIHR Bone Biomedical Research Unit, Northern, General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU.
2 Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Metabolic Bone Centre, Sorby Wing, EU14, E Floor, The Medical School, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, S10 2RX; NIHR Bone Biomedical Research Unit, Northern, General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, S5 7AU. Electronic address: E.V.McCloskey@sheffield.ac.uk.
Date published: 2020 Dec 9
Other: Special Notes: doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115802. , Word Count: 386
The potential of whole body vibration (WBV) to maintain or enhance musculoskeletal strength during ageing is of increasing interest, with both low and high magnitude WBV having been shown to maintain or increase bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. The aim of this study was to determine how a range of side alternating and vertical WBV platforms deliver vibration stimuli up through the human body. Motion capture data were collected for 6 healthy adult participants whilst standing on the Galileo 900, Powerplate Pro 5 and Juvent 100 WBV platforms. The side alternating Galileo 900 WBV platform delivered WBV at 5-30Hz and amplitudes of 0-5mm. The Powerplate Pro 5 vertical WBV platform delivered WBV at 25 and 30Hz and amplitude settings of 'Low' and 'High'. The Juvent 1000 vertical WBV platform delivered a stimulus at a frequency between 32-37Hz and amplitude 10 fold lower than either the Galileo or Powerplate, resulting in accelerations of 0.3g. Motion capture data were recorded using an 8 camera Vicon Nexus system with 21 reflective markers placed at anatomical landmarks between the toe and the forehead. Vibration was expressed as vertical RMS accelerations along the z-axis which were calculated as the square root of the mean of the squared acceleration values in g. The Juvent 1000 did not deliver detectable vertical RMS accelerations above the knees. In contrast, the Powerplate Pro 5 and Galileo 900 delivered vertical RMS accelerations sufficiently to reach the femoral neck and lumbar spine. The maximum vertical RMS accelerations at the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) were 1.00g ±0.30 and 0.85g ±0.49 for the Powerplate and Galileo respectively. For similar accelerations at the ASIS, the Galileo achieved greater accelerations within the lower limbs, while the Powerplate recorded higher accelerations in the thoracic spine at T10. The Powerplate Pro 5 and Galileo 900 deliver vertical RMS accelerations sufficiently to reach the femoral neck and lumbar spine, whereas the Juvent 1000 did not deliver detectable vertical RMS accelerations above the knee. The side alternating Galileo 900 showed greater attenuation of the input accelerations than the vertical vibrations of the Powerplate Pro 5. The platforms differ markedly in the transmission of vibration with strong influences of frequency and amplitude. Researchers need to take account of the differences in transmission between platforms when designing and comparing trials of whole body vibration.
Keywords: Galileo 900; Juvent 1000; Osteoporosis; Powerplate Pro 5; Transmission; Whole Body Vibration.
PMID: 33309990 DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115802