Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026
Paradigms of Lower Extremity Electrical Stimulation Training After Spinal Cord Injury
Published on: February 1, 2018
The effectiveness of a novel neuromuscular electrostimulation method versus intermittent pneumatic compression in
Huda Jawad1, Duncan S Bain1, Helen Dawson2
1Department of Clinical Pharmacology, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, United Kingdom.
Objective:
This study compares the effectiveness of a neuromuscular electrostimulation device (geko T-1; Firstkind Ltd, High Wycombe, UK) in enhancing lower limb blood perfusion with two leading intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices, the Huntleigh Flowtron Universal (Huntleigh Healthcare Ltd, Cardiff, UK) and the Kendall SCD Express (Covidien plc, Dublin, Ireland). The subjects' tolerance of the devices was also compared.
Methods:
Ten healthy subjects were recruited. The devices were fitted bilaterally, in a sequential manner, for 30 minutes. Ultrasound and laser Doppler fluxmetry assessments were performed.
Results:
The geko T-1 device was superior to both IPC devices in increasing both venous and arterial blood volume flow by ∼30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.7%-82.4%; P ≤ .001). The geko T-1 increased arterial blood velocity by 24% (95% CI, 9.7%-24.5%; P ≤ .001). A substantial increase in the total microcirculatory blood velocity by ∼370% (95% CI, 13.5%-39.7%) was reported after the use of the geko T-1 (P ≤ .001). With use of the visual analog scale, no significant differences in discomfort were found between the geko T-1 device and the IPC devices (P >.05).
Conclusions:
The geko T-1 device is more effective than the IPC devices in increasing venous, arterial, and microcirculatory blood velocity. The devices studied were safe and well tolerated by healthy subjects.
