Upper-Limb Recovery after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing EMG-Triggered, Cyclic, and Sensory Electrical Stimulation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Authors

  • Richard D. Wilson
  • Stephen J. Page
  • Michael Delahanty
  • Jayme S. Knutson
  • Douglas D. Gunzler
  • Lynne R. Sheffler
  • John Chae

External Institution(s)

  • Case Western Reserve University
  • Cleveland FES Center
  • Akron General Medical Center
  • Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine

Details

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)978-987
Number of pages10
JournalNeurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
Volume30
Issue number10
StatusPublished - Nov 1 2016
Peer-reviewedYes

Abstract

Background and purpose. This study compared the effect of cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), electromyographically (EMG)-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation on motor impairment and activity limitations in patients with upper-limb hemiplegia. Methods. This was a multicenter, single-blind, multiarm parallel-group study of nonhospitalized hemiplegic stroke survivors within 6 months of stroke. A total of 122 individuals were randomized to receive either cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, or sensory stimulation twice every weekday in 40-minute sessions, over an 8 week-period. Patients were followed for 6 months after treatment concluded. Results. There were significant increases in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [F(1, 111) = 92.6, P <.001], FMA Wrist and Hand [F(1, 111) = 66.7, P <.001], and modified Arm Motor Ability Test [mAMAT; time effect: F(1, 111) = 91.0, P <.001] for all 3 groups. There was no significant difference in the improvement among groups in the FMA [F(2, 384) = 0.2, P =.83], FMA Wrist and Hand [F(2, 384) = 0.4, P =.70], or the mAMAT [F(2, 379) = 1.2, P =.31]. Conclusions. All groups exhibited significant improvement of impairment and functional limitation with electrical stimulation therapy applied within 6 months of stroke. Improvements were likely a result of spontaneous recovery. There was no difference based on the type of electrical stimulation that was administered.

    Research areas

  • electrical stimulation, function, recovery, stroke

Citation formats

APA

Wilson, R. D., Page, S. J., Delahanty, M., Knutson, J. S., Gunzler, D. D., Sheffler, L. R., & Chae, J. (2016). Upper-Limb Recovery after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing EMG-Triggered, Cyclic, and Sensory Electrical Stimulation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 30(10), 978-987. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968316650278

Harvard

Wilson, RD, Page, SJ, Delahanty, M, Knutson, JS, Gunzler, DD, Sheffler, LR & Chae, J 2016, 'Upper-Limb Recovery after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing EMG-Triggered, Cyclic, and Sensory Electrical Stimulation', Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 978-987. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968316650278