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 ISI Web of Science 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 de Kroon, J. R Articles by IJzerman, M. J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by de Kroon, J. R Articles by IJzerman, M. J Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation

Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, jdekroon@spaarneziekenhuis

Maarten J IJzerman

Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, The Netherlands

Objective: To compare the effect of cyclic and electromyography (EMG)-triggered electrical stimulation on motor impairment and function of the affected upper extremity in chronic stroke.

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Outpatient clinic of a rehabilitation centre.

Subjects and intervention: Twenty-two subjects in the chronic stage after stroke were randomly assigned to receive either cyclic (n = 11) or EMG-triggered electrical stimulation (n = 11) of the wrist and finger extensor muscles for a six-week period.

Outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm test (0—57 points) to assess arm function. Grip strength, Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment and Motricity Index were secondary outcome measures. Assessments were made at the start of the treatment and after 4, 6 and 12 weeks.

Results: Both groups improved on the Action Research Arm test. The group receiving cyclic stimulation improved by 2.3 points, and the group receiving EMG-triggered stimulation improved by 4.2 points. The difference in functional gain was not statistically significant. Differences in gain on the secondary outcome measures were not significant either.

Conclusion: The present study did not detect a significant difference between EMG-triggered and cyclic electrical stimulation with respect to improvement of motor function of the affected arm in chronic stroke.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, No. 8, 690-697 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508088984


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