This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mangold, S. Articles by Ettlin, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mangold, S. Articles by Ettlin, T. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Motor Training of Upper Extremity With Functional Electrical Stimulation in Early Stroke Rehabilitation

Balgrist University Hospital, Spinal Cord Center, Zurich, Switzerland, smangold{at}balgrist.unizh.ch

Corina Schuster, MPTSc

Reha Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden, Switzerland

Thierry Keller, PhD

Balgrist University Hospital, Spinal Cord Center, Zurich, Switzerland, Automatic Control Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland

Andrea Zimmermann-Schlatter, MPTSc

Reha Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden, Switzerland

Thierry Ettlin, MD

Reha Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden, Switzerland

Background. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) allows active exercises in stroke patients with upper extremity paralysis. Objective. To investigate the effect of motor training with FES on motor recovery in acute and subacute stroke patients with severe to complete arm and/or hand paralysis. Methods. For this pilot study, 23 acute and subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 12) and control group (n = 11). Distributed over 4 weeks, FES training replaced 12 conventional training sessions in the intervention group. An Extended Barthel Index (EBI) subscore assessed the performance of activities of daily living (ADL). The Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment (CMSA) measured hand and arm function and shoulder pain. The Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) assessed resistance to passive movement. Unblinded assessments were performed prior to and following the end of the training period. Results. The EBI subscore and CMSA arm score improved significantly in both groups. The CMSA hand function improved significantly in the FES group. Resistance to passive movement of finger and wrist flexors increased significantly in the FES group. Shoulder pain did not change significantly. None of the outcome measures, however, demonstrated significant gain differences between the groups. Conclusions. We did not find clear evidence for superiority or inferiority of FES. Our findings, and those of similar trials, suggest that the number of sessions should be at least doubled to test for superiority of FES in these highly impaired patients and approximately 50 participants would have to be assigned to each therapeutic intervention to find significant differences.

Key Words: Electric stimulation • Stroke • Hemiplegia • Upper extremity • Rehabilitation

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 23, No. 2, 184-190 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1545968308324548


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?