4.2 Article

Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation with Mirror Therapy on Upper Extremity Motor Function in Poststroke Patients

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.06.017

关键词

Stroke; mirror therapy; functional electrical stimulation; upper extremity; motor function

资金

  1. Sahmyook University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Motor recovery of the upper extremity in stroke patients is an important goal of rehabilitation. In particular, motor recovery can be accelerated when physical and cognitive interventions are combined. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of functional electrical stimulation (FES) with mirror therapy (MT) on motor function of upper extremity in stroke patients. Methods: Twenty-seven stroke patients were recruited, and the 23 subjects who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into 2 groups: the experimental group (n = 12) and the control group (n = 11). Both groups received conventional rehabilitation training for 60 minutes/day and 5 days/week for 4 weeks. In addition, members of the experimental group received FES with MT and members of the control group received FES without MT for 30 minutes/day and 5 days/week for 4 weeks. Immediately before and after intervention, motor recovery was measured using the Fugl-Meyer (FM) assessment, Brunnstrom's motor recovery stage (BMRS), the Manual Function Test (MFT), and the Box and Block Test (BBT). Results: Significant upper extremity motor improvements were observed in the experimental and control groups according to the FM, BMRS, MFT, and BBT (P < . 05). In particular, FM subscores for wrist, hand, and co-ordination and MFT subscores for hand function were more significantly improved in the experimental group (P < . 05). Conclusions: Motor functions of the upper extremity were improved by FES with MT versus controls. The study shows that FES with MT during poststroke rehabilitation may effectively improve motor functions of the upper extremity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据