de Kroon J R, IJzerman M J, Lankhorst G J, Zilvold G
Roessingh Research and Development, PO Box 310, 7500 AH Enschede, The Netherlands.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Aug;83(8):592-600. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000133435.61610.55.
To investigate whether there is a difference in functional improvement in the affected arm of chronic stroke patients when comparing two methods of electrical stimulation.
Explanatory trial in which 30 chronic stroke patients with impaired arm function were randomly allocated to either alternating electrical stimulation of the extensor and flexor muscles of the hand (group A) or electrical stimulation of the extensors only (group B). Primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm test to assess arm function. Grip strength, Motricity Index, Ashworth Scale, and range of motion of the wrist were secondary outcome measures.
Improvement on the Action Research Arm test was 1.0 point in group A and 3.3 points in group B; the difference in functional gain was 2.3 points (95% confidence interval, -1.06 to 5.60). The success rate (i.e., percentage of patients with a clinically relevant improvement of >5.7 points on the Action Research Arm test) was 27% in group B (four patients) and 8% in group A (one patient). The differences in functional gain and success rate were not statistically significant, neither were the differences between the two groups on the secondary outcome measures.
The difference between the two stimulation strategies was not statistically significant.
比较两种电刺激方法,研究慢性卒中患者患侧上肢功能改善是否存在差异。
解释性试验,30例上肢功能受损的慢性卒中患者被随机分配至手部伸肌和屈肌交替电刺激组(A组)或仅伸肌电刺激组(B组)。主要结局指标为评估上肢功能的动作研究上肢测试。握力、运动指数、Ashworth量表和腕关节活动范围为次要结局指标。
A组动作研究上肢测试改善1.0分,B组改善3.3分;功能增益差异为2.3分(95%置信区间,-1.06至5.60)。B组成功率(即动作研究上肢测试临床相关改善>5.7分的患者百分比)为27%(4例患者),A组为8%(1例患者)。功能增益和成功率差异无统计学意义,两组次要结局指标差异也无统计学意义。
两种刺激策略之间的差异无统计学意义。