OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of cyclic and electromyography (EMG)-triggered electrical stimulation on motor impairment and function of the affected upper extremity in chronic stroke. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Outpatient clinic of a rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Twenty-two subjects in the chronic stage after stroke were randomly assigned to receive either cyclic (n=11) or EMG-triggered electrical stimulation (n=11) of the wrist and finger extensor muscles for a six-week period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm test (0-57 points) to assess arm function. Grip strength, Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment and Motricity Index were secondary outcome measures. Assessments were made at the start of the treatment and after 4, 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Both groups improved on the Action Research Arm test. The group receiving cyclic stimulation improved by 2.3 points, and the group receiving EMG-triggered stimulation improved by 4.2 points. The difference in functional gain was not statistically significant. Differences in gain on the secondary outcome measures were not significant either. CONCLUSION: The present study did not detect a significant difference between EMG-triggered and cyclic electrical stimulation with respect to improvement of motor function of the affected arm in chronic stroke.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of cyclic and electromyography (EMG)-triggered electrical stimulation on motor impairment and function of the affected upper extremity in chronic stroke. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Outpatient clinic of a rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Twenty-two subjects in the chronic stage after stroke were randomly assigned to receive either cyclic (n=11) or EMG-triggered electrical stimulation (n=11) of the wrist and finger extensor muscles for a six-week period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm test (0-57 points) to assess arm function. Grip strength, Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment and Motricity Index were secondary outcome measures. Assessments were made at the start of the treatment and after 4, 6 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Both groups improved on the Action Research Arm test. The group receiving cyclic stimulation improved by 2.3 points, and the group receiving EMG-triggered stimulation improved by 4.2 points. The difference in functional gain was not statistically significant. Differences in gain on the secondary outcome measures were not significant either. CONCLUSION: The present study did not detect a significant difference between EMG-triggered and cyclic electrical stimulation with respect to improvement of motor function of the affected arm in chronic stroke.
Authors: Douglas J Weber; Elizabeth R Skidmore; Christian Niyonkuru; Chia-Lin Chang; Lynne M Huber; Michael C Munin Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Richard D Wilson; Stephen J Page; Michael Delahanty; Jayme S Knutson; Douglas D Gunzler; Lynne R Sheffler; John Chae Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Lazar I Jovanovic; Naaz Kapadia; Vera Zivanovic; Hope Jervis Rademeyer; Mohammad Alavinia; Colleen McGillivray; Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan; Milos R Popovic; Cesar Marquez-Chin Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases Date: 2021-03-19
Authors: Janne Marieke Veerbeek; Erwin van Wegen; Roland van Peppen; Philip Jan van der Wees; Erik Hendriks; Marc Rietberg; Gert Kwakkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240