From the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Rehabilitation Institute (JSK, NSM, MYH, TZH, RDW, JC), and the Center for Healthcare Research and Policy (DDG), The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, Ohio; Cleveland Functional Electrical Stimulation Center, Cleveland, Ohio (JSK, NSM, MYH, TZH, RDW, JC); and Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (JSK, NSM, RDW, JC), Medicine (DDG), and Biomedical Engineering (JC), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jun;99(6):514-521. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001363.
Different methods of neuromuscular electrical stimulation may be used for poststroke upper limb rehabilitation. This study evaluated the effects of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation of the triceps and finger extensors.
This is a randomized controlled trial of 67 participants who were less than 2 yrs poststroke and assigned to the following: (a) arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, (b) hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, or (c) arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Participants were prescribed 10 sessions/week of assigned electrical stimulation at home plus 24 sessions of functional task practice in the laboratory for 12 wks. The primary outcome measure was the Box and Blocks Test. Secondary measures included reachable workspace, Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer, Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale, Arm Motor Abilities Test, and Motor Activity Log.
There were no significant between-group differences on the Box and Blocks Test. At 6 mos after treatment, arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved reachable workspace more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 264 (95% confidence interval = 28-500) cm and more than arm + hand cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 281 (95% confidence interval = 22-540) cm. Arm + hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improved Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer score more than hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation, between-group difference of 6.7 (95% confidence interval = 0.6-12.7). The between-group differences on the Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale and Arm Motor Abilities Test were not significant.
Adding contralaterally controlled elbow extension to hand contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation does not improve on gains in hand dexterity, but it further reduces upper limb impairment and improves reachable workspace measured in the laboratory. However, these additional benefits may not be large enough to be perceived by stroke survivors when they are performing activities of daily living at home.
不同的神经肌肉电刺激方法可用于脑卒中后的上肢康复。本研究评估了三头肌和手指伸展肌对侧控制功能性电刺激的效果。
这是一项纳入 67 名脑卒中后不足 2 年患者的随机对照试验,患者被分配至以下组别:(a)手臂+手部对侧控制功能性电刺激,(b)手部对侧控制功能性电刺激,或(c)手臂+手部循环神经肌肉电刺激。患者被规定在家中进行每周 10 次的指定电刺激,并在实验室中进行 12 周、每周 24 次的功能性任务练习。主要结局指标为“箱式测试”。次要指标包括可触及工作空间、上肢 Fugl-Meyer 评估、脑卒中上肢能力量表、上肢运动能力测试和运动活动日志。
在“箱式测试”上,各组间无显著差异。治疗后 6 个月,手臂+手部对侧控制功能性电刺激可使可触及工作空间的改善大于手部对侧控制功能性电刺激,组间差异为 264cm(95%置信区间=28-500cm),且大于手臂+手部循环神经肌肉电刺激,组间差异为 281cm(95%置信区间=22-540cm)。手臂+手部对侧控制功能性电刺激可使上肢 Fugl-Meyer 评分的改善大于手部对侧控制功能性电刺激,组间差异为 6.7(95%置信区间=0.6-12.7)。脑卒中上肢能力量表和上肢运动能力测试的组间差异无统计学意义。
在手对侧控制功能性电刺激中增加对侧控制的肘部伸展并不能提高手部灵巧性的改善,但能进一步降低上肢损伤程度,增加实验室测量的可触及工作空间。然而,当脑卒中幸存者在家中进行日常生活活动时,这些额外的益处可能不足以被他们察觉。