Presentation Type
Poster Presentation - Campus Access Only
Category
STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)
Abstract/Artist Statement
Comparing Skin Temperature Rewarming Times between Cold Water Immersion and Crushed Ice Packs
Verlanic, N, Nielsen, J, Moody, V. University of Montana
Context: Cryotherapy techniques are commonly used to reduce the rate of secondary injury by decreasing the metabolic rate, which in turn decreases the rate at which nearby uninjured tissues become hypoxic. Cryotherapy is also effective at controlling pain in acute and subacute injuries because of the numbing effect that it provides. This provides clinicians the opportunity to begin implementing rehabilitative exercises without inducing pain. The purpose of this study was to compare skin temperature following two common cryotherapy treatments: cold water immersion and crushed ice bag. We wanted to compare the difference in acute skin temperature drop immediately following treatment, and to determine the length of time skin temperature remained depressed to produce analgesic effects.
Methods:
A convenience sample of seven healthy, college-aged students were selected for this study (2 males, 5 females; average age 22 + 1 years, height 66 ±3 inches, and weight 150 + 14 lbs). A repeated measures design was used whereby subjects completed both trials with a week between each trial. The two trials included a 30-minute treatment of a crushed ice pack or a 10- minute cold water immersion. Subjects were asked to stay seated while baseline skin temperatures were recorded using a Ryobi Infrared thermometer. Skin temperatures were recorded over the sinus tarsi of each subject’s ankle before and after each trial and at 5 and 10- minutes post treatment. Three measurements were obtained and an average was recorded. Treatment order was randomized and spaced out a week apart. Microsoft Excel was used to calculate descriptive statistics for each participant’s height, weight, and age along with their skin temperature measurements A 2 x 4 (trial x time) repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS v26.0 was used to calculate mean difference in skin temperature immediately after treatment, 5- minutes post and 10- minutes post between cold water immersion and crushed ice pack. Significance was set a priori at p = 0.05.
Results: A 2 x 4 repeated measures ANOVA revealed no statistical significance (p=0.204). However, there was a main effect for time whereby all trials resulted in similar amounts of skin temperature cooling (p = 0.00). Follow up comparisons for each time point were conducted and revealed no statistical significance in baseline skin temperatures (p=0.815) or skin temperature following each intervention immediately after treatment (p= 0.560), 5 minutes after (p=.452) and 10 minutes after (p=0.622) suggesting each modality cooled skin temperature similarly.
Conclusion: Our study showed that there is no significant difference between the crushed ice pack and cold water immersion with both effectively decreasing skin temperature. Both modalities reached therapeutic range achieving analgesia; however, the effects were short-lived demonstrating tissue rewarming outside the therapeutic range within 5 minutes following treatment.
Mentor Name
Valerie Moody
Personal Statement
Comparing Skin Temperature Rewarming Times between Cold Water Immersion and Crushed Ice Packs Verlanic, N, Nielsen, J, Moody, V. University of Montana Context: Cryotherapy techniques are commonly used to reduce the rate of secondary injury by decreasing the metabolic rate, which in turn decreases the rate at which nearby uninjured tissues become hypoxic. Cryotherapy is also effective at controlling pain in acute and subacute injuries because of the numbing effect that it provides. This provides clinicians the opportunity to begin implementing rehabilitative exercises without inducing pain. The purpose of this study was to compare skin temperature following two common cryotherapy treatments: cold water immersion and crushed ice bag. We wanted to compare the difference in acute skin temperature drop immediately following treatment, and to determine the length of time skin temperature remained depressed to produce analgesic effects. Methods: A convenience sample of seven healthy, college-aged students were selected for this study (2 males, 5 females; average age 22 + 1 years, height 66 ±3 inches, and weight 150 + 14 lbs). A repeated measures design was used whereby subjects completed both trials with a week between each trial. The two trials included a 30-minute treatment of a crushed ice pack or a 10- minute cold water immersion. Subjects were asked to stay seated while baseline skin temperatures were recorded using a Ryobi Infrared thermometer. Skin temperatures were recorded over the sinus tarsi of each subject’s ankle before and after each trial and at 5 and 10- minutes post treatment. Three measurements were obtained and an average was recorded. Treatment order was randomized and spaced out a week apart. Microsoft Excel was used to calculate descriptive statistics for each participant’s height, weight, and age along with their skin temperature measurements A 2 x 4 (trial x time) repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS v26.0 was used to calculate mean difference in skin temperature immediately after treatment, 5- minutes post and 10- minutes post between cold water immersion and crushed ice pack. Significance was set a priori at p = 0.05. Results: A 2 x 4 repeated measures ANOVA revealed no statistical significance (p=0.204). However, there was a main effect for time whereby all trials resulted in similar amounts of skin temperature cooling (p = 0.00). Follow up comparisons for each time point were conducted and revealed no statistical significance in baseline skin temperatures (p=0.815) or skin temperature following each intervention immediately after treatment (p= 0.560), 5 minutes after (p=.452) and 10 minutes after (p=0.622) suggesting each modality cooled skin temperature similarly. Conclusion: Our study showed that there is no significant difference between the crushed ice pack and cold water immersion with both effectively decreasing skin temperature. Both modalities reached therapeutic range achieving analgesia; however, the effects were short-lived demonstrating tissue rewarming outside the therapeutic range within 5 minutes following treatment.
Verlanic Nielsen Mythbuster Final Draft.docx (57 kB)
Final Paper
mythbuster PP.pptx (4457 kB)
Power Point
Comparing Skin temperature rewarming times between cold water immersion and crushed ice packs
Comparing Skin Temperature Rewarming Times between Cold Water Immersion and Crushed Ice Packs
Verlanic, N, Nielsen, J, Moody, V. University of Montana
Context: Cryotherapy techniques are commonly used to reduce the rate of secondary injury by decreasing the metabolic rate, which in turn decreases the rate at which nearby uninjured tissues become hypoxic. Cryotherapy is also effective at controlling pain in acute and subacute injuries because of the numbing effect that it provides. This provides clinicians the opportunity to begin implementing rehabilitative exercises without inducing pain. The purpose of this study was to compare skin temperature following two common cryotherapy treatments: cold water immersion and crushed ice bag. We wanted to compare the difference in acute skin temperature drop immediately following treatment, and to determine the length of time skin temperature remained depressed to produce analgesic effects.
Methods:
A convenience sample of seven healthy, college-aged students were selected for this study (2 males, 5 females; average age 22 + 1 years, height 66 ±3 inches, and weight 150 + 14 lbs). A repeated measures design was used whereby subjects completed both trials with a week between each trial. The two trials included a 30-minute treatment of a crushed ice pack or a 10- minute cold water immersion. Subjects were asked to stay seated while baseline skin temperatures were recorded using a Ryobi Infrared thermometer. Skin temperatures were recorded over the sinus tarsi of each subject’s ankle before and after each trial and at 5 and 10- minutes post treatment. Three measurements were obtained and an average was recorded. Treatment order was randomized and spaced out a week apart. Microsoft Excel was used to calculate descriptive statistics for each participant’s height, weight, and age along with their skin temperature measurements A 2 x 4 (trial x time) repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS v26.0 was used to calculate mean difference in skin temperature immediately after treatment, 5- minutes post and 10- minutes post between cold water immersion and crushed ice pack. Significance was set a priori at p = 0.05.
Results: A 2 x 4 repeated measures ANOVA revealed no statistical significance (p=0.204). However, there was a main effect for time whereby all trials resulted in similar amounts of skin temperature cooling (p = 0.00). Follow up comparisons for each time point were conducted and revealed no statistical significance in baseline skin temperatures (p=0.815) or skin temperature following each intervention immediately after treatment (p= 0.560), 5 minutes after (p=.452) and 10 minutes after (p=0.622) suggesting each modality cooled skin temperature similarly.
Conclusion: Our study showed that there is no significant difference between the crushed ice pack and cold water immersion with both effectively decreasing skin temperature. Both modalities reached therapeutic range achieving analgesia; however, the effects were short-lived demonstrating tissue rewarming outside the therapeutic range within 5 minutes following treatment.