Contralaterally controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of ankle dorsiflexion: a pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic post-stroke hemiplegia

Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation for Improving Motor Function After Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the effect of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) on motor function after acquired brain injury (ABI).

DATA SOURCES

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Web of Science, SinoMed, CNKI, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals and Wanfang Database, from inception to December 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of CCFES on motor function compared with routine rehabilitation or routine electrical stimulation after ABI. Two independent reviewers screened 894 articles for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION

The extracted data included study information, sample size, study population, interventions, measurement evaluated, and the test interval.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This study included 24 trials with 28 intervention-control pairs and 1148 participants with stroke. Meta-analysis showed that the CCFES group demonstrated more significant improvement than the control group in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale (FMA) (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.44-0.88, P<.001), active range of motion (AROM) (SMD=0.77, 95% CI=0.54-1.01, P<.001), modified Barthel Index (MBI) (SMD=0.55, 95% CI=0.29-0.81, P<.001), Motricity Index (MI) (SMD=0.60, 95% CI=0.26-0.94, P<.001) surface electromyography (sEMG) (SMD=0.81, 95% CI=0.56-1.06, P<.001), and Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) (SMD=0.53, 95% CI=0.24-0.83, P<.001). The CCFES group showed no significant improvement over the control group in the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) (SMD=0.24, 95% CI=-0.10-0.58, P=.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Our synthesized evidence suggests that CCFES could improve motor function in patients with stroke. More RCTs with other patients with brain injury are required to provide future evidence on the therapy effect of CCFES and make a contribution to the uniform standard of CCFES.

The efficacy of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation compared to conventional neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of limb function following a stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Limb paresis following a stroke is a common sequela that can impact patients' quality of life. Many rehabilitation strategies targeting the restoration of motor function exist. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the effects of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) as a modality for limb rehabilitation. Unlike conventional neuromuscular electrical simulation (NMES), the contra-laterality in CCFES is achieved by two methods a bend angle sensor or an electromyographic bridge (EMGB) method, both of which targets signals from the unaffected limb.

Method

This review study was performed following the preferred reporting item for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Records that met the inclusion criteria were extracted from the following databases: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Additional articles were also retrieved from clinicaltrials.gov and China/Asia on Demand (CAOD). Only randomized controlled studies (RCTs) were included.

Results

Sixteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis (meta-analysis). The results of the analysis show that when compared to conventional NMES, CCFES displayed a better improvement in the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment (UEFMA) (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.62, p-value <0.0001, I2 = 15%, GRADE: moderate), box and blocks test (BBT) (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.86, p-value = 0.01, I2 = 0%, GRADE: very low), modified Barthel index (mBI) (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.71, p-value = 0.002, I2 = 0%, GRADE: moderate), active range of motion (AROM) (SMD = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.94, p-value = 0.0002, I2 = 23%, GRADE: moderate), and surface electromyography (sEMG) scores (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.90, p-value = 0.008, I2 = 0%, GRADE: low). The results of the subgroup analysis for the type of sensor used in CCFES shows that an EMGB (SMD = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.84, p-value <0.00001, I2 = 7%) is more effective than a bend angle sensor (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI: -0.12, 0.45, p-value = 0.25, I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

The results of this study provide strong evidence that shows CCFES being a better electrical stimulation modality compared to conventional NMES. This could be explained by the fact that CCFES is bilateral in nature which offers a platform for better neuroplasticity following a stroke. There is still a need for high-quality studies with a standardized approach comparing CCFES to other treatment modalities.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=342670, identifier CRD42022342670.

Mirror therapy combined with neuromuscular electrical stimulation for poststroke lower extremity motor function recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The combination of mirror therapy (MT) and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been devised as an intervention method in stroke rehabilitation; however, few studies have investigated its efficacy in lower extremity motor function recovery. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the effectiveness of combined MT and NMES therapy in improving poststroke walking speed, spasticity, balance and other gait parameters. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. In total, six RCTs which involving 181 participants were included. Our findings indicate that MT combined with NMES elicits greater improvement relative to control group in walking speed (SMD = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.07, P = 0.001), Berg Balance Scale (SMD = 0.72; 95% CI 0.31-1.13; P = 0.0007), cadence (SMD = 0.59, 95% CI 0.02-1.16, P = 0.04), step length (SMD = 0.94, 95% CI 0.35-1.53, P = 0.002), and stride length (SMD = 0.95, 95% CI 0.36-1.54, P = 0.002) but not in modified Ashworth scale (SMD =  - 0.40, 95% CI - 1.05 to 0.26, P = 0.23). Our findings suggest that MT combined with NMES may be a suitable supplemental intervention to conventional therapy in stroke survivors.

Balance Training with Weight Shift-Triggered Electrical Stimulation for Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aimed to determine the effects of balance training with weight shift-triggered electrical stimulation to improve balance, lower-extremity motor function, and activities of daily living in patients with stroke. The participants were randomly allocated to the balance training with electrical stimulation group (BT-ESG, n = 29) or the balance training group (BTG, n = 30). Both groups were trained 5 times per week for 6 weeks for 50 min per session. To evaluate static balance, postural sway was assessed and dynamic balance was assessed using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and functional reach test (FRT). Lower-extremity motor function was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer assessment. Daily activities were assessed using the Modified Barthel Index. As for static balance, BT-ESG showed a significant improvement compared to BTG in postural swat in both the eyes-open (velocity moment; effect size, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, -1.16 to -1.30), or eyes-closed state (velocity moment; effect size, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, -1.22 to -0.27). Dynamic balance, which includes TUG (effect size, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, -4.67 to -1.25), BBS (effect size, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, -2.84 to 6.83), and FRT (effect size, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.92 to 4.08), in addition to lower-extremity motor function (effect size, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 2.25 to 4.97), and activities of daily living (effect size, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.04 to 937), showed significant improvement in BT-ESG compared to BTG. These results suggest that balance training with weight shift-triggered electrical stimulation effectively improves balance, lower-extremity motor function, and activities of daily living in patients with stroke.

Effectiveness of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation for recovery of lower extremity function in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for motor recovery of the lower extremity in patients with subacute stroke.

Materials and methods

Seventy patients within 6 months post-stroke were randomly assigned to the CCFES group (n = 35) and the NMES group (n = 35). Both groups underwent routine rehabilitation plus 20-min electrical stimulation (CCFES or NMES) on ankle dorsiflexion muscles per day, 5 days a week, for 3 weeks. Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion), Fugl-Meyer assessment-lower extremity (FMA-LE), Barthel Index (BI), Functional Ambulation Category scale (FAC), 10-meter walking test, and surface electromyography (sEMG) were assessed at the baseline and at the end of the intervention.

Result

Ten patients did not complete the study (five in CCFES and five in NMES), so only 60 patients were analyzed in the end. After the 3-week intervention, FMA-LE, BI, Ankle AROM (dorsiflexion), and FAC increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Patients in the CCFES group showed significantly greater improvements only in the measurement of Fugl-Meyer assessment-lower extremity compared with the NMES group after treatment (p < 0.05). The improvement in sEMG response of tibialis anterior by CCFES was greater than NMES (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Contralateral controlled functional electrical stimulation can effectively improve the motor function of the lower limbs better than conventional neuromuscular electrical stimulation in subacute patients after stroke, but the effect on improving the ability to walk, such as walking speed, was not good.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier: ChiCTR2100045423.

Effectiveness of a Novel Contralaterally Controlled Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Restoring Lower Limb Motor Performance and Activities of Daily Living in Stroke Survivors: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Contralaterally controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation (CCNMES) is a novel electrical stimulation treatment for stroke; however, reports on the efficacy of CCNMES on lower extremity function after stroke are scarce.

Objective

To compare the effects of CCNMES versus NMES on lower extremity function and activities of daily living (ADL) in subacute stroke patients.

Methods

Forty-four patients with a history of subacute stroke were randomly assigned to a CCNMES group and a NMES group (n = 22 per group). Twenty-one patients in each group completed the study per protocol, with one subject lost in follow-up in each group. The CCNMES group received CCNMES to the tibialis anterior (TA) and the peroneus longus and brevis muscles to induce ankle dorsiflexion motion, whereas the NMES group received NMES. The stimulus current was a biphasic waveform with a pulse duration of 200 μs and a frequency of 60 Hz. Patients in both groups underwent five 15 min sessions of electrical stimulation per week for three weeks. Indicators of motor function and ADL were measured pre- and posttreatment, including the Fugl–Meyer assessment of the lower extremity (FMA-LE) and modified Barthel index (MBI). Surface electromyography (sEMG) assessments included average electromyography (aEMG), integrated electromyography (iEMG), and root mean square (RMS) of the paretic TA muscle.

Results

Values for the FMA-LE, MBI, aEMG, iEMG, and RMS of the affected TA muscle were significantly increased in both groups after treatment (p < 0.01). Patients in the CCNMES group showed significant improvements in all the measurements compared with the NMES group after treatment. Within-group differences in all post- and pretreatment indicators were significantly greater in the CCNMES group than in the NMES group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

CCNMES improved motor function and ADL ability to a greater extent than the conventional NMES in subacute stroke patients.

Smart Protocols for Physical Therapy of Foot Drop Based on Functional Electrical Stimulation: A Case Study

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is used for treating foot drop by delivering electrical pulses to the anterior tibialis muscle during the swing phase of gait. This treatment requires that a patient can walk, which is mostly possible in the later phases of rehabilitation. In the early phase of recovery, the therapy conventionally consists of stretching exercises, and less commonly of FES delivered cyclically. Nevertheless, both approaches minimize patient engagement, which is inconsistent with recent findings that the full rehabilitation potential could be achieved by an active psycho-physical engagement of the patient during physical therapy. Following this notion, we proposed smart protocols whereby the patient sits and ankle movements are FES-induced by self-control. In six smart protocols, movements of the paretic ankle were governed by the non-paretic ankle with different control strategies, while in the seventh voluntary movements of the paretic ankle were used for stimulation triggering. One stroke survivor in the acute phase of recovery participated in the study. During the therapy, the patient’s voluntary ankle range of motion increased and reached the value of normal gait after 15 sessions. Statistical analysis did not reveal the differences between the protocols in FES-induced movements.

Mirror Therapy with Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for improving motor function of stroke survivors: A pilot randomized clinical study

OBJECTIVE

This study was to investigate the effects of Mirror Therapy (MT) combined with Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) on muscle strength and tone, motor function, balance, and gait ability in stroke survivors with hemiplegia.

METHODS

This study was a randomized controlled trial. Twenty-seven hemiplegic stroke survivors from a rehabilitation center participated in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental or a control group. The experimental group (n = 14) underwent MT combined with NMES and conventional physical therapy, and the control group (n = 13) underwent conventional physical therapy alone. Muscle strength and tone, balance, and gait ability were examined at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention. A hand-held dynamometer was used to assess muscle strength, the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) was used to assess muscle tone, the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Timed Up and Go test (TUG) were used to ascertain balance, and the 6-m Walk Test (6mWT) was used to examine gait ability.

RESULTS

After the intervention, compared to baseline values, there were significant improvements in muscle strength and MAS, BBS, TUG, and 6mWT values in the experimental group (P< 0.05). In addition, at post-intervention, there were significant differences between the two groups in muscle strength and BBS (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

MT combined with NMES may effectively improve muscle strength and balance in hemiplegic stroke survivors. However, further studies are necessary to demonstrate brain reorganization after MT combined with NMES.

Effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on masticatory muscles in elderly stroke patients

[Purpose] This study aimed to examine the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on masticatory muscle activation in elderly stroke patients. [Subjects and Methods] The subjects included 20 elderly patients diagnosed with stroke and 10 healthy elderly individuals. The neuromuscular electrical stimulation group received stimulation on the masseter muscle in the affected side for 30 min each day, 3 times per week for 8 weeks. In all the subjects, surface electromyography was used to measure activity of the masseter and temporal muscles in both sides under resting and clenching conditions. [Results] In the neuromuscular electrical stimulation group, after the intervention, an increase in the activity of all of the masticatory muscles was observed during clenching, with a significant increase in the activity of the masseter muscle in the affected side. Significant differences between the groups were not observed after the interventions. [Conclusion] The results of this study suggest that application of neuromuscular electrical stimulation effectively improves muscle activity in elderly stroke patients during clenching, and that this technique can be applied particularly for the improvement of the clenching activity of the masseter muscle in the affected side.

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Motor Restoration in Hemiplegia

This article reviews the most common therapeutic and neuroprosthetic applications of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for upper and lower extremity stroke rehabilitation. Fundamental NMES principles and purposes in stroke rehabilitation are explained. NMES modalities used for upper and lower limb rehabilitation are described, and efficacy studies are summarized. The evidence for peripheral and central mechanisms of action is also summarized.

The role of electrical stimulation therapy in ophthalmic diseases

INTRODUCTION

Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) involves the use of a low-intensity electrical current in the treatment of neuromuscular conditions. During the recent two decades, EST has emerged as a potential neuroprotective strategy in certain ophthalmic diseases, aided by a lack of effective management for these conditions.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss current available evidence for the use of EST in ophthalmic diseases in the laboratory setting and in human trials.

METHODS

The compilation and review of published English-language reports on the use of EST in human ophthalmic disease and animal models of ophthalmic disease.

RESULTS

From published reports, research work on the use of EST in ophthalmic diseases began in the last 20 years. Different methods of electrical stimulation have been devised, with varying levels of invasiveness. Results from human trials have favored earlier and repeated treatment after insults to the optic nerve, while EST has shown transient effectiveness in degenerative diseases of photoreceptors. Patients also reported no serious adverse effects from EST in the clinical trials. Results from animal studies have further confirmed survival benefits of EST in retinal cell survival, with the underlying mechanism likely multifactorial, but involving Müller cell modulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from human and animal studies have demonstrated the relevance and potential effectiveness of EST in ophthalmic disease. However, optimal disease and species-specific stimulation settings need to be defined.