. 2024 Sep 2;21(9):e70040. doi: 10.1111/iwj.70040

TABLE 3.

Impact of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) of the common peroneal nerve on venous physiology in subjects with venous disease.

Paper	NMES device	Subject number	Subjects	Study design	Venous flow assessment	Ultrasound comparisons
Williams ³⁰	Geko T‐1 4–6 h/day, 5 days/week, for 6 weeks	40	10 healthy 10 Venous Disease Superficial 10 Deep vein insufficiency 10 Deep vein obstruction	Four group comparative study	Ultrasound femoral vein during stimulation	% change from baseline ^a
							Flow velocity		Flow volume
						Healthy	34.8 (−4–81)^*		22.5 (−10–40)
						VD superficial	62.8 (25–138)^*		37.5 (−10‐172)^**
						VD deep insufficiency	9.0 (−10–84)^***		17.4 (1–49)^**
						VD Deep obstruction	14.8 (−8–51)^***		5.9 (−11–21)^***
Das ³¹	Geko T‐2 and R‐2	14	Patients with active venous ulceration	Single‐arm within‐subject comparisons	Ultrasound of popliteal vein seated and recumbent		Flow velocity ^b		Flow volume ^b
							Base	Stim	Base	Stim
						Seated	10	33^*	Non‐significant increase
						Recumbent	14	47^*	Non‐significant increase

Note: flow volume mL/min; flow velocity cm/s.

^{^a}

Median (IQR).

^{^b}

Mean.

p < 0.01;

^**

p < 0.05;

^***

Not significant.