| Literature DB >> 35873627 |
Rui Li1,2, Jingyi Lu1, Meiqi Wang1, Ping Zhang1, Hongmei Fang1, Kunli Yang1, Liuyan Wang1, Jianlin Zhuang1, Zhihe Tian1, Jianming Yang1, Qing Luo1, Zhufen Yang1, Kai Ling Chin2.
Abstract
Peripheral electrical nerve stimulation enhances hand function during stroke rehabilitation. Here, we proposed a percutaneous direct median nerve stimulation guided by ultrasound (ultrasound-guided median nerve electrical stimulation, UG-MNES) and evaluated its feasibility and effectiveness in the treatment of stroke patients with upper limb extremity impairments. Sixty-three stroke patients (2-3 months of onset) were randomly divided into control and UG-MNES groups. Both groups received routine rehabilitation and the UG-MNES group received an additional ultrasound-guided electrical stimulation of the median nerve at 2 Hz, 0.2 ms pulse-width for 20 minutes with gradual intensity enhancement. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity motor function (FMA-UE) was used as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the Functional Test for the Hemiplegic Upper Extremity (FTHUE-HK), Hand Function Rating Scale, Brunnstrom Stages, and Barthel Index scores for motor and daily functions. All the participants completed the trial without any side effects or adverse events during the intervention. After 4 weeks of intervention, the functions of the upper limbs on the hemiplegic side in both groups achieved significant recovery. Compared to the control group, all evaluation indices used in this trial were improved significantly in the UG-MNES group after 2 and 4 weeks of intervention; particularly, the first intervention of UG-MNES immediately improved all the assessment items significantly. In conclusion, the UG-MNES is a safe and feasible treatment for stroke patients with upper limb extremity impairments and could significantly improve the motor function of the affected upper limb, especially in the first intervention. The UG-MNES could be an effective alternative intervention for stroke with upper limb extremity impairments.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35873627 PMCID: PMC9303480 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3590057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1Flowchart of the study.
Figure 2Median nerve electrical stimulation under ultrasound: (a) median nerve imaging of longitudinal section, (b) median nerve imaging of transection, (c) the ultrasound-guided median nerve electrical stimulation, and (d) UG-MNES ultrasound image. The white arrow points to the median nerve and the yellow arrow points to the electrical stimulation needle.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of subjects.
| Team | Control group ( | Experimental group ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 56.39 ± 2.11 | 54.5 ± 2.12 | 0.531 | |
|
| ||||
| Gender ( | M | 17 (54.8) | 17 (53.1) | 0.892 |
| F | 14 (45.2) | 15 (46.9) | ||
|
| ||||
| Time after stroke (months) M (P25, P75) | 2 (1, 3) | 2 (1, 3) | 0.736 | |
|
| ||||
| Stroke type ( | CI | 17 (54.8) | 10 (31.25) | 0.061 |
| CH | 14 (45.2) | 22 (68.75) | ||
|
| ||||
| NIHSS score M (P25, P75) | 10 (7, 13) | 8 (6.25, 9) | 0.061 | |
M: male; F: female; CI: cerebral ischemia; CH: cerebral hemorrhage.
Comparison of FMA-UE scores in the two groups, M (P25, P75).
| Team | Before | 2 weeks | 4 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 6 (4, 9) | 13 (8, 17) | 20 (10, 26) |
| Experimental group ( | 6.5 (4, 9) | 19 (16, 22) | 26 (19.25, 30) |
|
| 4.42 | 3.21 | 2.225 |
|
| 0.659 | 0.001 | 0.026 |
Figure 3UG-MNES promoted the FMA-UE scores.
Comparison of FTHUE-HK in the two groups, M (P25, P755).
| Team | Before | 2 weeks | 4 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 1 (1, 2) | 3 (2, 3) | 3 (3, 4) |
| Experimental group ( | 1 (1, 2) | 3 (3, 4) | 4 (4, 4.75) |
|
| 0.99 | 2.219 | 2.687 |
|
| 0.32 | 0.027 | 0.007 |
Comparison of Hand Function Rating Scale in the two groups, M (P25, P75).
| Team | Before | 2 weeks | 4 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 1 (1, 2) | 2 (2, 3) | 2 (2, 3) |
| Experimental group ( | 1 (1, 2) | 3 (2, 3) | 3 (3, 3) |
|
| 0.079 | 2.818 | 4.291 |
|
| 0.937 | 0.005 | <0.001 |
Figure 4UG-MNES promoted the FTHUE-HK scores.
Figure 5UG-MNES promoted the Hand Function Rating Scale.
Comparison of Brunnstrom Stages in the two groups, M (P25, P75).
| Team | Before | 2 weeks | 4 weeks |
|
| |||
| Control group ( | 2 (1, 2) | 2 (2, 3) | 2 (2, 3) |
| Experimental group ( | 2 (1, 2) | 3 (2, 3) | 3 (2.25, 4) |
|
| 0.366 | 2.099 | 3.240 |
|
| 0.714 | 0.036 | 0.001 |
Figure 6UG-MNES improved the Brunnstrom Stages.
Comparison of Barthel Index in the two groups, M (P25, P75).
| Team | Before | 2 weeks | 4 weeks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 20 (15, 25) | 35 (30, 40) | 40 (35, 45) |
| Experimental group ( | 20 (15, 25) | 40 (35, 45) | 45 (40, 55) |
|
| 0.691 | 2.721 | 2.690 |
|
| 0.490 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
Figure 7UG-MNES improved the Barthel Index.
Comprehensive function assessment of the affected upper limb before and immediately after median nerve electrical stimulation, M (P25, P75).
| Outcomes | 1 week |
| 2 weeks |
| 3 weeks |
| 4 weeks |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMA-UE | 6.5 (4, 9) |
| 11 (8, 13.75) | 0.243 | 19 (16, 22) | 0.039 | 20 (16, 23.75) | 0.004 |
| 12 (12, 14.75) | 11 (10, 13.75) | 20 (16, 23.75) | 28 (21.25, 32) | |||||
| FTHUE-HK | 1 (1, 2) |
| 3 (2, 3) | 0.068 | 3 (3, 4) | 0.035 | 4 (4, 4.75) | 0.129 |
| 3 (2, 3) | 3 (3, 3) | 4 (3, 4) | 4 (4, 5) | |||||
| Brunnstrom | 2 (1, 2) |
| 2 (2, 2) | 0.140 | 2 (2, 3) | 0.102 | 3 (2.25, 4) | 0.705 |
| 3 (3, 3) | 2 (2, 3) | 3 (2, 3) | 3 (3, 3) | |||||
| Hand Function | 1 (1, 2) |
| 2 (2, 3) | 0.138 | 2 (2, 3) | 0.417 | 3 (3, 3) | 0.152 |
| 3 (2, 3) | 3 (2, 3) | 3 (2, 3) | 3 (3, 4) | |||||
| Barthel Index | 20 (15, 25) |
| 32.5 (25, 40) | 0.003 | 40 (35, 45) | 0.252 | 40 (35, 50) | 0.104 |
| 35 (31.25, 47.5) | 35 (30, 40) | 40 (40, 45) | 47.5 (40, 55) |
FMA-UE: Fugl-Meyer Assessment of upper extremity, FTHUE-HK: Functional Test for the Hemiplegic Upper Extremity. Pp value: before the intervention versus after the intervention immediately.