4.3 Article

Effects of hybrid-functional electrical stimulation (FES) rowing whole-body exercise on neurologic improvement in subacute spinal cord injury: secondary outcomes analysis of a randomized controlled trial

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 58, 期 8, 页码 914-920

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-020-0445-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1R01HL117037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design Secondary outcome measures analysis of a randomized, controlled study. Objective To assess the effects of hybrid-functional electrical stimulation (FES) rowing on motor and sensory recovery in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) 6-18 months post injury. Setting Outpatient rehabilitation network. Methods 25 participants 6-12 months after SCI were randomly assigned to hybrid-FES rowing (n = 10) or standard of care (n = 15) groups. The hybrid-FES rowing group completed 6 months of rowing scheduled 3 times per week for 26 weeks at an exercise intensity of 70-85% of maximal heart rate. The standard of care group either participated in an arm ergometer exercise program (n = 6) or a waitlist without an explicit exercise program (n = 9). Changes in motor score and combined sensory score of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI (ISNCSCI) were analyzed. Results Both groups demonstrated increases in motor and combined sensory scores, but no significant differences were noted between intervention groups (motor difference mean up arrow 1.3 (95% CI, -1.9 to 4.4), combined sensory difference mean down arrow 10 (-30 to 18)). There was an average of 63% adherence to the hybrid-FES rowing protocol, with no significant correlation in changes in motor or combined sensory score in the hybrid-FES rowing group with total distance or time rowed. Conclusions No significant effects to neurologic improvement were found with hybrid-FES rowing when compared with standard of care interventions in individuals with SCI 6-18 months post injury.

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

4.3
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