Electrical stimulation of the upper limb in stroke -: Stimulation of the extensors of the hand vs. alternate stimulation of flexors and extensors

被引:33
作者
de Kroon, JR
Ijzerman, MJ
Lankhorst, GJ
Zilvold, G
机构
[1] Roessing Res & Dev, NL-7500 AH Enschede, Netherlands
[2] VU Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Rehabil Med, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
chronic stroke; upper limb; electrical stimulation therapy; rehabilitation;
D O I
10.1097/01.phm.0000133435.61610.55
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Objective: To investigate whether there is a difference in functional improvement in the affected arm of chronic stroke patients when comparing two methods of electrical stimulation. Design: Explanatory trial in which 30 chronic stroke patients with impaired arm function were randomly allocated to either alternating electrical stimulation of the extensor and flexor muscles of the hand (group A) or electrical stimulation of the extensors only (group B). Primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm test to assess arm function. Grip strength, Motricity Index, Ashworth Scale, and range of motion of the wrist were secondary outcome measures. Results: Improvement on the Action Research Arm test was 1.0 point in group A and 3.3 points in group B; the difference in functional gain was 2.3 points (95% confidence interval, - 1.06 to 5.60). The success rate (i.e., percentage of patients with a clinically relevant improvement of >5.7 points on the Action Research Arm test) was 27% in group B (four patients) and 8% in group A (one patient). The differences in functional gain and success rate were not statistically significant, neither were the differences between the two groups on the secondary outcome measures. Conclusion: The difference between the two stimulation strategies was not statistically significant.
引用
收藏
页码:592 / 600
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
ALFIERI V, 1982, SCAND J REHABIL MED, V14, P177
[2]  
Alon G, 1998, J NEUROL REHABIL, V12, P73
[3]   Maximal grip force in chronic stroke subjects and its relationship to global upper extremity function [J].
Boissy, P ;
Bourbonnais, D ;
Carlotti, MM ;
Gravel, D ;
Arsenault, BA .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 1999, 13 (04) :354-362
[4]  
BOWMAN BR, 1979, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V60, P497
[5]  
Broeks JG, 1999, DISABIL REHABIL, V21, P357
[6]   Chronic motor dysfunction after stroke - Recovering wrist and finger extension by electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation [J].
Cauraugh, J ;
Light, K ;
Kim, S ;
Thigpen, M ;
Behrman, A .
STROKE, 2000, 31 (06) :1360-1364
[7]   Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one - Electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation and bilateral movements [J].
Cauraugh, JH ;
Kim, S .
STROKE, 2002, 33 (06) :1589-1594
[8]   Neuromuscular stimulation for upper extremity motor and functional recovery in acute hemiplegia [J].
Chae, J ;
Bethoux, F ;
Bohinc, T ;
Dobos, L ;
Davis, T ;
Friedl, A .
STROKE, 1998, 29 (05) :975-979
[9]  
Chae J., 1999, Crit. Rev. Phys. Rehabil. Med, V11, P279, DOI [10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.v11.i34.40, DOI 10.1615/CRITREVPHYSREHABILMED.V11.I34.40]
[10]   ASSESSING MOTOR IMPAIRMENT AFTER STROKE - A PILOT RELIABILITY STUDY [J].
COLLIN, C ;
WADE, D .
JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 1990, 53 (07) :576-579