Effects of Instructional Functional Electrical Stimulation on the Motor Function and Functional Independence of Upper Extremity in Hemiplegic Stroke Patient

Zhang Anjing,Bai Yulong,Hu Yongshan,Wu Yi,Jiang Luchun,Li Li,Lu Weibo,Xu Yiming,Zhu Bing,Tian Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.16038/j.1000-6710.2011.04.011
2011-01-01
Abstract:Objective To explore the effects of instructional functional electrical stimulation(IFES)on the motor function and functional independence of upper extremity in hemiplegic stroke patient.Methods Forty eight hemiplegic patients after stroke were randomly divided into four groups:IFES group,traditional electrical stimulation(TES)group,electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation(ETNS)group and control group(without any stimulation).All subjects underwent the same rehabilitation training and internal medicine treatment.The extensor muscles of wrist of patients in IFES,TES and ETNS groups received 20-day electrical stimulation via surface electrodes.Motor function of upper extremity and functional independence of all subjects were assessed with the simplified Fugl-Meyer scores and the functional comprehensive assessment(FCA)before treatment and on the 20th day after treatment.Results No significant differences were found in every rating scale among the groups at the recruitment.After 20-day treatment,the motor function of upper extremity and functional independence in all groups revealed progress in some extent,especially significantly in IFES group,ETNS group and TES group(P < 0.05).Compared with the control group and the TES group,there were significant differences in the Fugl-Meyer scores and the FCA scores of the IFES group and the ETNS group on the 20th day(P < 0.05),while no statistic differences were found between IFES group and the ETNS group(P > 0.05).Conclusion The study indicated that IFES could enhance the motor function and improve the functional dependence of upper extremity in hemiplegic stroke patient.Therapeutic efficacy in IFES group was similar to that in ETNS group but better than that in TES group and control group.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?