A comparison of the rehabilitation effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation robotic hand training and pure robotic hand training after stroke: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the rehabilitation effects of the electromyography (EMG)-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) robotic hand and EMG-driven robotic hand for chronic stroke. MethodsThis study was a randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up. Thirty chronic stroke patients were randomly assigned to receive 20-session upper limb training with either EMG-driven NMES robotic hand (NMES group, n = 15) or EMG-driven robotic hand (pure group, n = 15). The training effects were evaluated before and after the training, as well as 3 months later, using the clinical scores of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Session-by-session EMG parameters, including the normalized EMG activation level and co-contraction indexes (CIs) of the target muscles were applied to monitor the recovery progress in muscular coordination patterns. ResultsBoth groups achieved significantly increased FMA and ARAT scores (p < 0.05), and the NMES group improved more (p < 0.05). A significant improvement in MAS was obtained in the NMES group (p < 0.05) but absence in the pure group. Meanwhile, better performance could be obtained in the NMES group in releasing the EMG activation levels and CIs than the pure group across the training sessions (p < 0.05). ConclusionBoth training systems were effective in improving the long-term distal motor functions in upper limb, where the NMES robot-assisted training achieved better voluntary motor recovery and muscle coordination and more release in muscle spasticity. SignificanceThis study indicated more effective distal rehabilitation using the NMES robot than the pure robot-assisted rehabilitation. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02117089; date of registration: April 10, 2014.