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

Joke R. de Kroon, Maarten Joost IJzerman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.
Original languageUndefined
Pages (from-to)690-697
Number of pages8
JournalClinical rehabilitation
Volume22
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Keywords

  • IR-76987
  • METIS-249190

Cite this

@article{7670b606de174691b0fd93e34bf15198,
title = "Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "IR-76987, METIS-249190",
author = "{de Kroon}, {Joke R.} and IJzerman, {Maarten Joost}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1177/0269215508088984",
language = "Undefined",
volume = "22",
pages = "690--697",
journal = "Clinical rehabilitation",
issn = "0269-2155",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "8",

}

Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation. / de Kroon, Joke R.; IJzerman, Maarten Joost.

In: Clinical rehabilitation, Vol. 22, No. 8, 2008, p. 690-697.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation

AU - de Kroon, Joke R.

AU - IJzerman, Maarten Joost

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - IR-76987

KW - METIS-249190

U2 - 10.1177/0269215508088984

DO - 10.1177/0269215508088984

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 690

EP - 697

JO - Clinical rehabilitation

JF - Clinical rehabilitation

SN - 0269-2155

IS - 8

ER -