Motor Recovery Of Upper Limb Research Articles

Intramuscular electromyographically controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation for upper limb recovery in chronic hemiplegia.

We report three cases of survivors of chronic stroke who were treated with active repetitive movement training of the paretic finger extensors mediated by intramuscular electromyographically controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the purpose of motor relearning. These case reports demonstrate the feasibility of using intramuscular electromyographically controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation for facilitating the upper limb motor recovery of chronic stroke survivors with mild to moderate hemiplegia.

Electrical stimulation for preventing and treating post-stroke shoulder pain: a systematic Cochrane review.

Shoulder pain after stroke is common and disabling. The optimal management is uncertain, but electrical stimulation (ES) is often used to treat and prevent pain. The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of any form of surface ES in the prevention and/or treatment of pain around the shoulder at any time after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Review Group trials register and undertook further searches of Medline, Embase and CINAHL. Contact was established with equipment manufacturers and centres that have published on the topic of ES. We considered all randomized trials that assessed any surface ES technique (functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or other), applied at any time since stroke for the purpose of prevention or treatment of shoulder pain. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Four trials (a total of 170 subjects) fitted the inclusion criteria. Study design and ES technique varied considerably, often precluding the combination of studies. Population numbers were small. There was no significant change in pain incidence (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% CI 0.19-2.14) or change in pain intensity (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.13; 95% CI -1.0-1.25) after ES treatment compared with control. There was a significant treatment effect in favour of ES for improvement in pain-free range of passive humeral lateral rotation (weighted mean difference (WMD) 9.17; 95% CI 1.43-16.91). In these studies ES reduced the severity of glenohumeral subluxation (SMD -1.13; 95% CI -1.66 to -0.60), but there was no significant effect on upper limb motor recovery (SMD 0.24; 95% CI -0.14-0.62) or upper limb spasticity (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.28-0.37). There did not appear to be any negative effects of electrical stimulation at the shoulder. The evidence from randomized controlled trials so far does not confirm or refute that ES around the shoulder after stroke influences reports of pain, but there do appear to be benefits for passive humeral lateral rotation. A possible mechanism is through the reduction of glenohumeral subluxation. Further studies are required.

Electrical stimulation for preventing and treating post-stroke shoulder pain.

Shoulder pain after stroke is common and disabling. The optimal management is uncertain, but electrical stimulation (ES) is often used to treat and prevent pain. The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of any form of surface ES in the prevention and / or treatment of pain around the shoulder at any time after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Review Group trials register and undertook further searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Contact was established with equipment manufacturers and centres that have published on the topic of ES. We considered all randomised trials that assessed any surface ES technique (functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or other), applied at any time since stroke for the purpose of prevention or treatment of shoulder pain. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Four trials (a total of 170 subjects) fitted the inclusion criteria. Study design and ES technique varied considerably, often precluding the combination of studies. Population numbers were small. There was no significant change in pain incidence (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.14) or change in pain intensity (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.13; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.25) after ES treatment compared to control. There was a significant treatment effect in favour of ES for improvement in pain-free range of passive humeral lateral rotation (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 9.17; 95% CI 1.43 to 16.91). In these studies ES reduced the severity of glenohumeral subluxation (SMD -1.13; 95% CI -1.66 to -0.60), but there was no significant effect on upper limb motor recovery (SMD 0.24; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.62) or upper limb spasticity (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.37). There did not appear to be any negative effects of electrical stimulation at the shoulder. The evidence from randomised controlled trials so far does not confirm or refute that ES around the shoulder after stroke influences reports of pain, but there do appear to be benefits for passive humeral lateral rotation. A possible mechanism is through the reduction of glenohumeral subluxation. Further studies are required.

Directional patterns of muscle activation at the lower limb in subjects with hemiparesis and in healthy subjects: A comparative study

This article reports the results of a comparative study on directional patterns of muscle activation at the lower limb in 15 subjects with hemiparesis and 18 healthy subjects. Subjects were required to exert static hip and knee torques using multidirectional and biarticular dynamometers designed for the lower limbs. Hip torques were performed in abduction, adduction, flexion, extension, and in combined directions (e.g., hip flexion and abduction) and knee torques were exerted in flexion and extension. The required torque levels corresponded to approximately 5% of the maximal voluntary contraction of healthy subjects. Electromyographic (EMG) activities of the rectus femoris, biceps femoris, gracilis, gluteus medius, gluteus maximus, vastus lateralis, tibialis anterior, and soleus were recorded during these torques. The descriptive analysis involved comparison between either the polar plots (for hip tasks) or the histograms (for knee tasks) representing the mean muscle activity obtained across subjects during torques exerted in each direction for the three groups of muscles analyzed (normal, paretic, and nonparetic muscles). Ciucular statistics were also used to characterize directional patterns of activation in each muscle during hip tasks while linear statistics permitted one to analyze these patterns during knee tasks. In general, the results of both the descriptive and inferential statistical analyses indicated that directional patterns of muscle activation during hip and knee torques are not altered in subjects with hemiparesis. These results are in contrast to the disturbances observed previously in a study of directional patterns of muscle activation at the upper extremity in this population. It is suggested that the contrast between the present results and those obtained at the upper limb in subjects with hemiparesis may reflect the difference in the motor recovery of upper and lower paretic limbs or in the severity of spasticity in the muscles involved at the studied joints. Results of this study also showed that the paretic muscles often demonstrate larger EMG signals than normal and nonparetic muscles, especially during knee flexion torques. These last observations, in addition to the fact that some subjects with hemiparesis could not complete all of the tasks with their paretic limb, under-score the muscle weakness inherent to this population.