Jayme S Knutson1, Nathaniel S Makowski, Mary Y Harley, Terri Z Hisel, Douglas D Gunzler, Richard D Wilson, John Chae. 1. From the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute (JSK, NSM, MYH, TZH, RDW, JC), and the Center for Healthcare Research and Policy (DDG), The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, Ohio; Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Cleveland, Ohio (JSK, NSM, MYH, TZH, RDW, JC); and Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (JSK, NSM, RDW, JC), Medicine (DDG), and Biomedical Engineering (JC), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Different methods of neuromuscular electrical stimulation may be used for poststroke upper limb rehabilitation. This study evaluated the effects of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation of the triceps and finger extensors. DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial of 67 participants who were less than 2 yrs poststroke and assigned to the following: (a) arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, (b) hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, or (c) arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Participants were prescribed 10 sessions/week of assigned electrical stimulation at home plus 24 sessions of functional task practice in the laboratory for 12 wks. The primary outcome measure was the Box and Blocks Test. Secondary measures included reachable workspace, Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer, Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale, Arm Motor Abilities Test, and Motor Activity Log. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences on the Box and Blocks Test. At 6 mos after treatment, arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved reachable workspace more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 264 (95% confidence interval = 28-500) cm and more than arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 281 (95% confidence interval = 22-540) cm. Arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer score more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 6.7 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-12.7). The between-group differences on the Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale and Arm Motor Abilities Test were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adding contralaterally controlled elbow extension to hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation does not improve on gains in hand dexterity, but it further reduces upper limb impairment and improves reachable workspace measured in the laboratory. However, these additional benefits may not be large enough to be perceived by stroke survivors when they are performing activities of daily living at home.
OBJECTIVE: Different methods of neuromuscular electrical stimulation may be used for poststroke upper limb rehabilitation. This study evaluated the effects of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation of the triceps and finger extensors. DESIGN: This is a randomized controlled trial of 67 participants who were less than 2 yrs poststroke and assigned to the following: (a) arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, (b) hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, or (c) arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Participants were prescribed 10 sessions/week of assigned electrical stimulation at home plus 24 sessions of functional task practice in the laboratory for 12 wks. The primary outcome measure was the Box and Blocks Test. Secondary measures included reachable workspace, Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer, Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale, Arm Motor Abilities Test, and Motor Activity Log. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences on the Box and Blocks Test. At 6 mos after treatment, arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved reachable workspace more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 264 (95% confidence interval = 28-500) cm and more than arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 281 (95% confidence interval = 22-540) cm. Arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer score more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 6.7 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-12.7). The between-group differences on the Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale and Arm Motor Abilities Test were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adding contralaterally controlled elbow extension to hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation does not improve on gains in hand dexterity, but it further reduces upper limb impairment and improves reachable workspace measured in the laboratory. However, these additional benefits may not be large enough to be perceived by stroke survivors when they are performing activities of daily living at home.
Authors: Annemieke Houwink; Leo D Roorda; Wendy Smits; Ivo W Molenaar; Alexander C Geurts Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Steven L Wolf; Carolee J Winstein; J Philip Miller; Edward Taub; Gitendra Uswatte; David Morris; Carol Giuliani; Kathye E Light; Deborah Nichols-Larsen Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jayme S Knutson; Amy S Friedl; Kristine M Hansen; Terri Z Hisel; Mary Y Harley Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Mijail D Serruya; Alessandro Napoli; Nicholas Satterthwaite; Joe Kardine; Joseph McCoy; Namrata Grampurohit; Kiran Talekar; Devon M Middleton; Feroze Mohamed; Michael Kogan; Ashwini Sharan; Chengyuan Wu; Robert H Rosenwasser Journal: Commun Med (Lond) Date: 2022-04-07
Authors: Jayme S Knutson; Amy S Friedl; Kristine M Hansen; Mary Y Harley; A M Barrett; Preeti Raghavan; Ela B Plow; Douglas D Gunzler; John Chae Journal: Trials Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 2.728