Deans' stroke musings: A Systematic Review on Functional Electrical Stimulation Based Rehabilitation Systems for Upper Limb Post-Stroke Recovery

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

A Systematic Review on Functional Electrical Stimulation Based Rehabilitation Systems for Upper Limb Post-Stroke Recovery

Since you didn't put all this information together into an EXACT REHAB PROTOCOL. It was useless, survivors can't use this!

A Systematic Review on Functional Electrical Stimulation Based Rehabilitation Systems for Upper Limb Post-Stroke Recovery

Muhammad Ahmed Khan^1* Hoda Fares² Hemant Ghayvat³

Iris C. Brunner⁴ Sadasivan Puthusserypady⁵ Babak Razavi⁶

Maarten G. Lansberg¹

Ada Poon¹

Kimford J. Meador¹

¹Stanford Bio-X, Stanford University, United States
²University of Genoa, Italy
³Linnaeus University, Sweden
⁴Hammel Neurorehabilitation Centre, Aarhus University, Denmark
⁵Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
⁶Stanford University, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Stroke is one of the most common neurological conditions that often leads to upper limb motor impairments, significantly affecting individuals' quality of life. Rehabilitation strategies are crucial in facilitating post-stroke recovery and improving functional independence. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) systems have emerged as promising upper limb rehabilitation tools, offering innovative neuromuscular reeducation approaches. The main objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the start-of-the-art functional electrical stimulation (FES) systems for upper limb neurorehabilitation in post-stroke therapy. More specifically, this paper aims to review different types of FES systems, their feasibility testing, or randomized control trials (RCT) studies. The FES systems classification is based on the involvement of patient feedback within the FES control, which mainly includes “Open-Loop FES Systems” (manually controlled) and “Closed-Loop FES Systems” (brain-computer interface-BCI and electromyography-EMG controlled). Thus, valuable insights are presented into the technological advantages and effectiveness of Manual FES, EEG-FES, and EMG-FES systems. The review analyzed 25 studies and found that the use of FES-based rehabilitation systems resulted in favorable outcomes for the stroke recovery of upper limb functional movements, as measured by the FMA (Fugl-Meyer Assessment) (Manually controlled FES: mean difference = 5.6, 95% CI (3.77, 7.5), P < 0.001; BCI-controlled FES: mean difference = 5.37, 95% CI (4.2, 6.6), P < 0.001; EMG-controlled FES: mean difference = 14.14, 95% CI (11.72, 16.6), P < 0.001) and ARAT (Action Research Arm Test) (EMG-controlled FES: mean difference = 11.9, 95% CI (8.8, 14.9), P < 0.001) scores. Furthermore, the shortcomings, clinical considerations, comparison to non-FES systems, design improvements, and possible future implications are also discussed for improving stroke rehabilitation systems and advancing post-stroke recovery. Thus, summarizing the existing literature, this review paper can help researchers identify areas for further investigation. This can lead to formulating research questions and developing new studies aimed at improving FES systems and their outcomes in upper limb rehabilitation.