http://nnr.sagepub.com/content/30/10/978?etoc
- Richard D. Wilson, MD1,2,3⇑
- Stephen J. Page, PhD4
- Michael Delahanty, D.O.5,6
- Jayme S. Knutson, PhD1,2,3
- Douglas D. Gunzler, PhD2
- Lynne R. Sheffler, MD1,2,3
- John Chae, MD1,2,3
- 1MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
- 2Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
- 3Cleveland FES Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
- 4The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
- 5Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH, USA
- 6Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA
- Richard D. Wilson, MD, MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute, 4229 Pearl Road, Cleveland, OH, USA. Email: rwilson@metrohealth.org
Abstract
Background and purpose. This
study compared the effect of cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation
(NMES), electromyographically (EMG)-triggered
NMES, and sensory stimulation on motor impairment
and activity limitations in patients with upper-limb hemiplegia.
Methods.
This was a multicenter, single-blind, multiarm parallel-group study of
nonhospitalized hemiplegic stroke survivors within
6 months of stroke. A total of 122 individuals were
randomized to receive either cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, or
sensory
stimulation twice every weekday in 40-minute
sessions, over an 8 week-period. Patients were followed for 6 months
after treatment
concluded.
Results. There were significant increases in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [F(1, 111) = 92.6, P < .001], FMA Wrist and Hand [F(1, 111) = 66.7, P < .001], and modified Arm Motor Ability Test [mAMAT; time effect: F(1, 111) = 91.0, P < .001] for all 3 groups. There was no significant difference in the improvement among groups in the FMA [F(2, 384) = 0.2, P = .83], FMA Wrist and Hand [F(2, 384) = 0.4, P = .70], or the mAMAT [F(2, 379) = 1.2, P = .31].
Conclusions.
All groups exhibited significant improvement of impairment and
functional limitation with electrical stimulation therapy
applied within 6 months of stroke. Improvements
were likely a result of spontaneous recovery. There was no difference
based
on the type of electrical stimulation that was
administered.
No comments:
Post a Comment