Electrical stimulation of the upper limb in stroke -: Stimulation of the extensors of the hand vs. alternate stimulation of flexors and extensors
Electrical stimulation of the upper limb in stroke -: Stimulation of the extensors of the hand vs. alternate stimulation of flexors and extensors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/01.phm.0000133435.61610.55
复制
发表时间：
2004-08-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Zilvold, G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
de Kroon, JR;Ijzerman, MJ;Zilvold, G
目的：为了探讨是否有差异，在受影响的手臂的慢性中风患者的功能改善时，比较两种方法的电stimulation.Design：deletatory试验，其中30例慢性中风患者手臂功能受损被随机分配到任何交替电刺激的伸肌和屈肌的手（A组）或电刺激的伸肌（组B）。主要结局指标是评估手臂功能的行动研究手臂测试。握力、运动指数、Ashworth量表和腕关节活动范围是次要结果measurement.Results：A组和B组的行动研究手臂测试改善分别为1.0分和3.3分;功能增益差异为2.3分（95%置信区间，-1.06至5.60）。成功率（即，在行动研究组测试中临床相关改善> 5.7分的患者百分比）在B组（4名患者）中为27%，在A组（1名患者）中为8%。功能增益和成功率的差异无统计学意义，两组之间的差异也没有对次要结局measurement.Conclusion：两种刺激策略之间的差异无统计学意义。
Objective: 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.Design: 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.Results: 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.Conclusion: The difference between the two stimulation strategies was not statistically significant.