| Literature DB >> 21734906 |
Seyed Mansoor Rayegani1, Hadi Shojaee, Leyla Sedighipour, Mohammad Reza Soroush, Mohammad Baghbani, Omm'ol Banin Amirani.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Muscle atrophy, spasticity, and deformity are among long term complication of spinal cord injury (SCI) veterans. There are numerous studies evaluating effect of functional electrical stimulation on muscle properties of SCI people, but less research has focused on the benefits of passive cycling in the management of spasticity and improving ROM of lower limbs in individuals with SCI. AIMS: To evaluate the effect of electrical passive cycling on passive range of movement spasticity and electrodiagnostic parameters in SCI veterans.Entities:
Keywords: electrical passive cycling; spasticity; spinal cord injury
Year: 2011 PMID: 21734906 PMCID: PMC3119861 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2011.00039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Flow chart of the patients.
Motor and sensory distribution of the right and left spinal injury in SCI Veterans who were recruited in the study on EPPS application.
| Spinal regions | Right | Left | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motor region of the spinal injury | Sensory region of the spinal injury | Motor region of the spinal injury | Sensory region of the spinal injury | |||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
| Cervical | 11 | 17.2 | 8 | 12.5 | 12 | 18.8 | 8 | 12.5 |
| Upper thoracic | 22 | 34.4 | 20 | 31.3 | 21 | 32.8 | 20 | 31.3 |
| Lower thoracic | 29 | 45.3 | 28 | 43.8 | 28 | 43.8 | 28 | 43.8 |
| Lumbar | 2 | 3.1 | 2 | 3.1 | 2 | 3.1 | 1 | 1.6 |
| Unidentified | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 | 7 | 10.9 |
| Total | 64 | 100 | 64 | 100 | 64 | 100 | 64 | 100 |
The comparison between mean ROM of joints in Lower limbs before and after receiving the EPPS protocol in veterans used the EPPS optimally.
| Variant | Mean value | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hip abd. ROM | Before EPPS | 18.9655 | 9.3902 | 0.003 |
| After EPPS | 23.1034 | 7.6080 | ||
| Hip add. ROM | Before EPPS | 15.8621 | 7.3276 | 0.005 |
| After EPPS | 18.9655 | 5.5708 | ||
| Hip flex. ROM | Before EPPS | 85.3448 | 22.2779 | 0.000 |
| After EPPS | 103.7931 | 13.9933 | ||
| Hip ext. ROM | Before EPPS | 7.4138 | 7.8627 | 0.000 |
| After EPPS | 12.0690 | 6.1986 | ||
| Knee flex ROM | Before EPPS | 89.3103 | 28.0218 | 0.111 |
| After EPPS | 150.000 | 204.7646 | ||
| Ankle dorsiflex ROM | Before EPPS | 3.5714 | 5.4189 | 0.000 |
| After EPPS | 13.5714 | 6.2148 | ||
| Ankle plantar flex | Before EPPS | 9.8214 | 10.2227 | 0.000 |
| After EPPS | 19.2857 | 10.8622 | ||
According to the table, apart from knee flexion, mean difference in the rest ROM was significant (.
Comparison between mean value of LT H (max)/M (max) and RT H (max)/M (max), before and after EPPS application in veterans who conducted the pattern of optimal exercise with EPPS.
| Variables | Mean value | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RT H (max)/M (max) 1 | 0.3984 | 0.1902 | 0.000 |
| RT H (max)/M (max) 2 | 0.1963 | 0.1348 | |
| LT H (max)/M (max) 1 | 0.4022 | 0.1828 | 0.000 |
| LT H (max)/M (max) 2 | 0.1989 | 0.1176 | |
| RTF/M ratio 1 | 0.2063 | 0.2631 | 0.027 |
| RTF/M ratio 2 | 0.0923 | 0.1399 | |
| LTF/M ratio 1 | 0.2036 | 0.2697 | 0.025 |
| LTF/M ratio 2 | 0.0717 | 0.1043 |
1, Before exercise; 2, after exercise.