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
Alhussain Halawani,Ammar Aljabri,Dena M. Bahathiq,Roaa E. Morya,Saeed Alghamdi,Seraj Makkawi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1340248
IF: 3.4
2024-02-21
Frontiers in Neurology
Abstract: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, I 2 = 15%, GRADE: moderate), box and blocks test (BBT) (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.10, 0.86, p -value = 0.01, I 2 = 0%, GRADE: very low), modified Barthel index (mBI) (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.71, p -value = 0.002, I 2 = 0%, GRADE: moderate), active range of motion (AROM) (SMD = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.94, p -value = 0.0002, I 2 = 23%, GRADE: moderate), and surface electromyography (sEMG) scores (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.90, p -value = 0.008, I 2 = 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, I 2 = 7%) is more effective than a bend angle sensor (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI: −0.12, 0.45, p -value = 0.25, I 2 = 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.
neurosciences,clinical neurology