SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1545968308328729v1
23/6/569    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chae, J.
Right arrow Articles by Fang, Z.-P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chae, J.
Right arrow Articles by Fang, Z.-P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation for Upper Limb Recovery in Chronic Hemiparesis: An Exploratory Randomized Clinical Trial

John Chae, MD

Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio,jchae{at}metrohealth.org

Mary Y. Harley, OTR/L

Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Terri Z. Hisel, OTR/L

Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Catherine M. Corrigan, RN

Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Jeffrey A. Demchak, MS

NeuroControl Corporation, North Ridgeville, Ohio, Life Line Screening, Cleveland, Ohio.

Yu-Tung Wong, MSE

Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Zi-Ping Fang, PhD

NeuroControl Corporation, North Ridgeville, Ohio, Nevro Corporation, Palo Alto, California

Background. Surface electrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to improve the motor impairment of stroke survivors. However, surface ES can be painful and motor activation can be inconsistent from session to session. Percutaneous intramuscular ES may be an effective alternative. Objective. Evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous intramuscular ES in facilitating the recovery of the hemiparetic upper limb of chronic stroke survivors. Methods. A total of 26 chronic stroke survivors were randomly assigned to percutaneous intramuscular ES for hand opening (n = 13) or percutaneous ES for sensory stimulation only (n = 13). The intramuscular ES group received cyclic, electromyography (EMG)-triggered or EMG-controlled ES depending on baseline motor status. All participants received 1 hour of stimulation per day for 6 weeks. After completion of ES, participants received 18 hours of task-specific functional training. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment. Secondary measures included the Arm Motor Ability Test and delay and termination of EMG activity. Outcomes were assessed in a blinded manner at baseline, at the end of ES, at the end of functional training, and at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up. Results. Repeated measure analysis of variance did not yield any significant treatment, or time by treatment interaction effects for any of the outcome measures. Conclusion. Percutaneous intramuscular ES does not appear to be any more effective than sensory ES in enhancing the recovery of the hemiparetic upper limb among chronic stroke survivors. However, because of the exploratory nature of the study and its inherent limitations, conclusions must be drawn with caution.

Key Words: Intramuscular electrical stimulation • Upper limb • Chronic hemiparesis • Stroke

This version was published on July 1, 2009

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 23, No. 6, 569-578 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1545968308328729


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




Advertisement