Effect of Sensory-Amplitude Electric Stimulation on Motor Recovery and Gait Kinematics After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study
Yavuzer G, Öken Ö, Atay MB, Stam HJ. Effect of sensory-amplitude electric stimulation on motor recovery and gait kinematics after stroke: a randomized controlled study. Objective: To evaluate the effects of sensory-amplitude electric stimulation (SES) of the paretic leg on motor recovery and gait kinematics of patients with stroke. Design: Randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Setting: Rehabilitation ward and gait laboratory of a university hospital. Participants: A total of 30 consecutive inpatients with stroke (mean age, 63.2y), all within 6 months poststroke and without volitional ankle dorsiflexion were studied. Intervention: Both the SES group (n=15) and the placebo group (n=15) participated in a conventional stroke rehabilitation program 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The SES group also received 30 minutes of SES to the paretic leg without muscle contraction 5 days a week for 4 weeks. Main Outcome Measures: Brunnstrom stages of motor recovery and time-distance and kinematic characteristics of gait. Results: Brunnstrom stages improved significantly in both groups (P<.05). In total, 58% of the SES group and 56% of the placebo group gained voluntary ankle dorsiflexion. The between-group difference of percentage change was not significant (P>.05). Gait kinematics was improved in both groups, but the between-group difference was not significant. Conclusions: In our patients with stroke, SES of the paretic leg was not superior to placebo in terms of lower-extremity motor recovery and gait kinematics.
|Keywords||Cerebrovascular accident, Electric stimulation, Gait, Rehabilitation|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.030, hdl.handle.net/1765/35387|
Yavuzer, M.G., Öken, O., Atay, M.B., & Stam, H.J.. (2007). Effect of Sensory-Amplitude Electric Stimulation on Motor Recovery and Gait Kinematics After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(6), 710–714. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.030