| Literature DB >> 30662575 |
Xiuyuan Zheng1, Danfeng Chen2, Tiebin Yan1,3, Dongmei Jin1, Zhiqiang Zhuang1, Zhimei Tan4, Wei Wu1.
Abstract
Functional electrical stimulation can improve motor function after stroke. The mechanism may involve activity-dependent plasticity and brain remodeling. The aim of our study was to investigate the effectiveness of a patterned electrical stimulation FES mimic to gait in motor recovery among stroke survivors and to investigate possible mechanisms through brain fMRI. Forty-eight subjects were recruited and randomly assigned to a four-channel FES group (n = 18), a placebo group (n = 15), or a dual-channel FES group (n = 15). Stimulation lasted for 30 minutes in each session for 3 weeks. All of the subjects were assessed at baseline and after weeks 1, 2, and 3. The assessments included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients, Brunel's Balance Assessment, the Berg Balance Scale, and the modified Barthel Index. Brain fMRI were acquired before and after the intervention. All of the motor assessment scores significantly increased week by week in all the three groups. The four-channel group showed significantly better improvement than the dual-channel group and placebo groups. fMRI showed that fractional anisotropy was significantly increased in both the four-channel and dual-channel groups compared with the placebo group and fiber bundles had increased significantly on the ipsilateral side, but not on the contralateral side in the group given four-channel stimulation. In conclusion, when four-channel FES induces cycling movement of the lower extremities based on a gait pattern, it may be more effective in promoting motor recovery and induce more plastic changes and brain remodeling than two-channel stimulation. This trial is registered with clinical trial registration unique identifier ChiCTR-TRC-11001615.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30662575 PMCID: PMC6312612 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8923520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Neurol ISSN: 0953-4180 Impact factor: 3.342
Subject demographics.
| FES-4 | FES-2 | FES-P | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (years) | 59 ± 11 | 60 ± 9 | 59 ± 9 |
| Males | 9 (50) | 9 (60) | 9 (60) |
| Females | 9 (50) | 6 (40) | 6 (40) |
| Paretic side: right | 11 (61.1) | 6 (40) | 7 (47) |
| Paretic side: left | 7 (38.9) | 9 (60) | 8 (53) |
| Type of stroke: hemorrhagic | 14 (77.8) | 12 (80) | 4 (26.7) |
| Type of stroke: ischemic | 4 (22.2) | 3 (20) | 11 (73.3) |
| Time since stroke onset (days) | 20 ± 11 | 21 ± 13 | 20 ± 12 |
| Brunnstrom stage | |||
| I | 8 (44.4) | 6 (40) | 5 (33) |
| II | 7 (38.9) | 7 (46.7) | 8 (53.3) |
| IV | 3 (16.7) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) |
Values are mean ± SD or number (percent of the group).
Figure 1Flowchart of the study.
Comparison of assessment outcomes among the 3 groups.
| Variable | Case number | Group | Week 0 | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Change after 1 week | Change after 2 weeks | Change after 3 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PASS | 18 | Four-channel | 11 ± 5 | 23 ± 6a | 29 ± 3a | 31 ± 3a | 12 ± 5 | 18 ± 4 | 20 ± 5 |
| 15 | Dual-channel | 12 ± 8 | 20 ± 9a | 24 ± 8ab | 28 ± 8a | 8 ± 5b | 12 ± 5b | 16 ± 4b | |
| 15 | Placebo | 12 ± 8 | 20 ± 10a | 21 ± 7ab | 25 ± 8ab | 8 ± 4b | 8 ± 5bc | 13 ± 5b | |
| BBA | 18 | Four-channel | 3.1 ± 1.3 | 5.0 ± 1.9a | 8.3 ± 2.4a | 9.2 ± 2.3a | 2.0 ± 1.5 | 5.2 ± 2.6 | 6.1 ± 2.5 |
| 15 | Dual-channel | 3.5 ± 1.6 | 4.8 ± 2.6a | 6.9 ± 3.0a | 8.7 ± 3.0a | 1.3 ± 1.5 | 3.4 ± 1.8b | 4.7 ± 1.7b | |
| 15 | Placebo | 3.1 ± 2.2 | 5.1 ± 3.3a | 6.2 ± 3.1ab | 8.0 ± 3.5a | 1.9 ± 1.6 | 3.1 ± 1.2b | 4.9 ± 1.8 | |
| BBS | 18 | Four-channel | 6 ± 5 | 20 ± 11a | 37 ± 7a | 43 ± 8a | 14 ± 9 | 31 ± 7 | 37 ± 8 |
| 15 | Dual-channel | 6 ± 5 | 18 ± 15a | 29 ± 16a | 37 ± 13a | 12 ± 12 | 23 ± 12b | 31 ± 10b | |
| 15 | Placebo | 9 ± 10 | 18 ± 15a | 24 ± 16ab | 29 ± 17ab | 10 ± 8 | 16 ± 9bc | 21 ± 11bc | |
| FMA | 18 | Four-channel | 9 ± 6 | 15 ± 4a | 22 ± 5a | 25 ± 5a | 6 ± 5 | 13 ± 7 | 16 ± 8 |
| 15 | Dual-channel | 8 ± 4 | 13 ± 7a | 18 ± 9a | 20 ± 7a | 5 ± 4 | 9 ± 5 | 12 ± 5 | |
| 15 | Placebo | 8 ± 6 | 13 ± 8a | 15 ± 8ab | 17 ± 9ab | 5 ± 5 | 7 ± 7b | 9 ± 6b | |
| MBI | 18 | Four-channel | 22 ± 9 | 52 ± 12a | 73 ± 13a | 81 ± 13a | 30 ± 9 | 51 ± 11 | 59 ± 11 |
| 15 | Dual-channel | 23 ± 13 | 44 ± 20a | 60 ± 17ab | 71 ± 15a | 21 ± 10b | 37 ± 12b | 48 ± 7b | |
| 15 | Placebo | 24 ± 13 | 38 ± 18abc | 47 ± 20ab | 54 ± 25abc | 15 ± 9b | 23 ± 10bc | 31 ± 15bc |
Values are mean ± SD. Change is the value before treatment minus the one at the time indicated. aSignificant difference at the p ≤ 0.001 level of confidence compared with the baseline value. bSignificant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level of confidence compared with the four-channel group. cSignificant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level of confidence compared with the dual-channel group.
Comparison of FA outcomes among the 3 groups.
| Group | Case number | Ipsilateral FA value | Contralateral FA value | Change value | Rate of change value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 3 | Week 0 | Week 3 | Ipsilateral FA change | Contralateral FA change | Ipsilateral rate | Contralateral rate | ||
| Four-channel | 6 | 0.155 ± 0.087 | 0.321 ± 0.172a | 0.585 ± 0.058 | 0.588 ± 0.068 | 0.166 ± 0.111 | 0.002 ± 0.038 | 0.073 ± 0.017 | 0.044 ± 0.034a |
| Dual-channel | 6 | 0.186 ± 0.076 | 0.333 ± 0.164a | 0.600 ± 0.1 | 0.590 ± 0.124 | 0.147 ± 0.091 | −(0.009 ± 0.106) | 0.069 ± 0.011 | 0.043 ± 0.021a |
| Placebo | 6 | 0.185 ± 0.12 | 0.217 ± 0.135 | 0.558 ± 0.123 | 0.562 ± 0.129 | 0.032 ± 0.052bc | 0.065 ± 0.118 | 0.061 ± 0.023 | 0.060 ± 0.025bc |
Value: mean ± SD; change value: FA values of week 3 minus those of week 0; rate of change value: (ipsilateral FA − contralateral FA)/ipsilateral FA∗100%. ap < 0.05 indicates significant difference when compared with week 0 within groups. bp < 0.05 indicates significant difference when compared with the four-channel group. cp < 0.05 indicates significant difference when compared with the dual-channel group.
Figure 2Representative brain remodeling with three subjects. (a), (c), (e), and (g) show T1WI, T2W2, FA, DTT, respectively, before intervention. (b), (d), (f), and (h) show T1WI, T2W2, FA, and DTT, respectively, after intervention. In all the three groups, pictures (b) and (d) suggest that perilesional edema was absorbed obviously after intervention; pictures (e) and (g) suggest that the bundle of fibers in lesional regions was significantly less than contralateral side and it was interrupted, compressed, and shifted. In the four-channel group, pictures (f) and (h) suggest that fibers in the same lesional regions increased significantly after treatment. In the dual-channel group, pictures (f) and (h) suggest that fibers in lesional regions do not increase but even decreased after treatment. Fibers seem to increase in the contralateral regions. In the placebo group, pictures (f) and (h) suggest that fibers in the lesional regions do not increase after treatment. We took the samples as follows: a patient, male, 62 years old, with left parietal lobe hematoma for the four-channel group; a patient, male, 52 years old, with right ganglia and corona radiata infarction for the dual-channel group; and a patient, male, 62 years old, with left parietal lobe hematoma for the placebo group.