Cargando…
Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for motor recovery of the lower extremity in patients with subacute stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients within 6 mon...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9773873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36570446 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1010975 |
_version_ | 1784855282368643072 |
---|---|
author | Huang, Songhua Zhang, Yuqian Liu, Peile Chen, Yinglun Gao, Beiyao Chen, Chan Bai, Yulong |
author_facet | Huang, Songhua Zhang, Yuqian Liu, Peile Chen, Yinglun Gao, Beiyao Chen, Chan Bai, Yulong |
author_sort | Huang, Songhua |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for motor recovery of the lower extremity in patients with subacute stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients within 6 months post-stroke were randomly assigned to the CCFES group (n = 35) and the NMES group (n = 35). Both groups underwent routine rehabilitation plus 20-min electrical stimulation (CCFES or NMES) on ankle dorsiflexion muscles per day, 5 days a week, for 3 weeks. Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion), Fugl-Meyer assessment-lower extremity (FMA-LE), Barthel Index (BI), Functional Ambulation Category scale (FAC), 10-meter walking test, and surface electromyography (sEMG) were assessed at the baseline and at the end of the intervention. RESULT: Ten patients did not complete the study (five in CCFES and five in NMES), so only 60 patients were analyzed in the end. After the 3-week intervention, FMA-LE, BI, Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion), and FAC increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Patients in the CCFES group showed significantly greater improvements only in the measurement of Fugl-Meyer assessment-lower extremity compared with the NMES group after treatment (p < 0.05). The improvement in sEMG response of tibialis anterior by CCFES was greater than NMES (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Contralateral controlled functional electrical stimulation can effectively improve the motor function of the lower limbs better than conventional neuromuscular electrical stimulation in subacute patients after stroke, but the effect on improving the ability to walk, such as walking speed, was not good. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier: ChiCTR2100045423. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9773873 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97738732022-12-23 Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial Huang, Songhua Zhang, Yuqian Liu, Peile Chen, Yinglun Gao, Beiyao Chen, Chan Bai, Yulong Front Neurol Neurology OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for motor recovery of the lower extremity in patients with subacute stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients within 6 months post-stroke were randomly assigned to the CCFES group (n = 35) and the NMES group (n = 35). Both groups underwent routine rehabilitation plus 20-min electrical stimulation (CCFES or NMES) on ankle dorsiflexion muscles per day, 5 days a week, for 3 weeks. Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion), Fugl-Meyer assessment-lower extremity (FMA-LE), Barthel Index (BI), Functional Ambulation Category scale (FAC), 10-meter walking test, and surface electromyography (sEMG) were assessed at the baseline and at the end of the intervention. RESULT: Ten patients did not complete the study (five in CCFES and five in NMES), so only 60 patients were analyzed in the end. After the 3-week intervention, FMA-LE, BI, Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion), and FAC increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Patients in the CCFES group showed significantly greater improvements only in the measurement of Fugl-Meyer assessment-lower extremity compared with the NMES group after treatment (p < 0.05). The improvement in sEMG response of tibialis anterior by CCFES was greater than NMES (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Contralateral controlled functional electrical stimulation can effectively improve the motor function of the lower limbs better than conventional neuromuscular electrical stimulation in subacute patients after stroke, but the effect on improving the ability to walk, such as walking speed, was not good. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier: ChiCTR2100045423. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9773873/ /pubmed/36570446 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1010975 Text en Copyright © 2022 Huang, Zhang, Liu, Chen, Gao, Chen and Bai. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neurology Huang, Songhua Zhang, Yuqian Liu, Peile Chen, Yinglun Gao, Beiyao Chen, Chan Bai, Yulong Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial |
title | Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Neurology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9773873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36570446 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.1010975 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huangsonghua effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT zhangyuqian effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT liupeile effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT chenyinglun effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT gaobeiyao effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT chenchan effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT baiyulong effectivenessofcontralaterallycontrolledfunctionalelectricalstimulationvsneuromuscularelectricalstimulationforrecoveryoflowerextremityfunctioninpatientswithsubacutestrokearandomizedcontrolledtrial |