Myoelectrically driven functional electrical stimulation may increase motor recovery of upper limb in poststroke subjects: A randomized controlled pilot study

A systematic review on functional electrical stimulation based rehabilitation systems for upper limb post-stroke recovery

Background

Stroke is one of the most common neurological conditions that often leads to upper limb motor impairments, significantly affecting individuals' quality of life. Rehabilitation strategies are crucial in facilitating post-stroke recovery and improving functional independence. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) systems have emerged as promising upper limb rehabilitation tools, offering innovative neuromuscular reeducation approaches.

Objective

The main objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the start-of-the-art functional electrical stimulation (FES) systems for upper limb neurorehabilitation in post-stroke therapy. More specifically, this paper aims to review different types of FES systems, their feasibility testing, or randomized control trials (RCT) studies.

Methods

The FES systems classification is based on the involvement of patient feedback within the FES control, which mainly includes "Open-Loop FES Systems" (manually controlled) and "Closed-Loop FES Systems" (brain-computer interface-BCI and electromyography-EMG controlled). Thus, valuable insights are presented into the technological advantages and effectiveness of Manual FES, EEG-FES, and EMG-FES systems.

Results and discussion

The review analyzed 25 studies and found that the use of FES-based rehabilitation systems resulted in favorable outcomes for the stroke recovery of upper limb functional movements, as measured by the FMA (Fugl-Meyer Assessment) (Manually controlled FES: mean difference = 5.6, 95% CI (3.77, 7.5), P < 0.001; BCI-controlled FES: mean difference = 5.37, 95% CI (4.2, 6.6), P < 0.001; EMG-controlled FES: mean difference = 14.14, 95% CI (11.72, 16.6), P < 0.001) and ARAT (Action Research Arm Test) (EMG-controlled FES: mean difference = 11.9, 95% CI (8.8, 14.9), P < 0.001) scores. Furthermore, the shortcomings, clinical considerations, comparison to non-FES systems, design improvements, and possible future implications are also discussed for improving stroke rehabilitation systems and advancing post-stroke recovery. Thus, summarizing the existing literature, this review paper can help researchers identify areas for further investigation. This can lead to formulating research questions and developing new studies aimed at improving FES systems and their outcomes in upper limb rehabilitation.

EMG-Informed Neuromusculoskeletal Modelling Estimates Muscle Forces and Joint Moments During Electrical Stimulation

This study implemented an electromyogram (EMG)-informed neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) model evaluating the volitional contributions to muscle forces and joint moments during functional electrical stimulation (FES). The NMS model was calibrated using motion and EMG (biceps brachii and triceps brachii) data recorded from able-bodied participants (n=3) performing weighted elbow flexion and extension cycling movements while equipped with an EMG-controlled closed-loop FES system. Models were executed using three computational approaches (i) EMG-driven, (ii) EMG-hybrid and (iii) EMG-assisted to estimate muscle forces and joint moments. Both EMG-hybrid and EMG-assisted modes were able estimate the elbow moment (root mean squared error and coefficient of determination), but the EMG-hybrid method also enabled quantifying the volitional contributions to muscle forces and elbow moments during FES. The proposed modelling method allows for assessing volitional contributions of patients to muscle force during FES rehabilitation, and could be used as biomarkers of recovery, biofeedback, and for real-time control of combined FES and robotic systems.

ROBOCOP (ROBOtic Care of Poststroke Pain): Study Protocol for a Randomized Trial to Assess Robot-Assisted Functional and Motor Recovery and Impact on Poststroke Pain Development

Background

Stroke is one of the most frequent causes of death and disability worldwide. It is accompanied by the impaired motor function of the upper extremities in over 69% of patients up to hemiplegia in the following 5 years in 56% of cases. This condition often is characterized by chronic poststroke pain, difficult to manage, further worsening quality of life. Poststroke pain occurs within 3–6 months. Robot-assisted neurorehabilitation using the Automatic Recovery Arm Motility Integrated System (ARAMIS) has proven efficacy in motor function recovery exploiting the movements and the strength of the unaffected arm. The rationale of the ROBOCOP (ROBOtic Care of Poststroke pain) randomized trial is the assessment of the impact of robot-assisted functional and motor recovery on the prevention of poststroke pain.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with hemiplegic arms due to stroke will be enrolled and randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to ARAMIS or conventional neurorehabilitation group. After a baseline screening at hospital discharge, ARAMIS or conventional rehabilitation will be performed for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint is the prevention of the development of poststroke pain and the secondary endpoints are prevention of spasticity and efficacy in clinical motor rehabilitation. The primary outcome measures consist in the visual analog scale and the doleur neuropatique 4 and the secondary outcome measures include: the Modified Ashworth Scale, the Resistance to Passive movement Scale; the Upper Extremity Subscale of the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment; the Action Research Arm Test; the Barthel Index for activities of daily living; and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) recovery-related parameters. After baseline, both primary and secondary outcome measures will be performed in the following time points: 1 month after stroke (t₁, half of the rehabilitation); 2 months after stroke (t₂, after rehabilitation); and 3 months (t₃) and 6 months (t₄) after stroke, critical for poststroke pain development.

Discussion

This is the first clinical trial investigating the efficacy of robot-assisted neurorehabilitation using ARAMIS on poststroke pain prevention. This study could remarkably improve the quality of life of stroke survivors.

Detailed characterization of physiological EMG activations and directional tuning of upper-limb and trunk muscles in point-to-point reaching movements

In recent years, several studies have investigated upper-limb motion in a variety of scenarios including motor control, physiology, rehabilitation and industry. Such applications assess people’s kinematics and muscular performances, focusing on typical movements that simulate daily-life tasks. However, often only a limited interpretation of the EMG patterns is provided. In fact, rarely the assessments separate phasic (movement-related) and tonic (postural) EMG components, as well as the EMG in the acceleration and deceleration phases. With this paper, we provide a comprehensive and detailed characterization of the activity of upper-limb and trunk muscles in healthy people point-to-point upper limb movements. Our analysis includes in-depth muscle activation magnitude assessment, separation of phasic (movement-related) and tonic (postural) EMG activations, directional tuning, distinction between activations in the acceleration and deceleration phases. Results from our study highlight a predominant postural activity with respect to movement related muscular activity. The analysis based on the acceleration phase sheds light on finer motor control strategies, highlighting the role of each muscle in the acceleration and deceleration phase. The results of this study are applicable to several research fields, including physiology, rehabilitation, design of robots and assistive solutions, exoskeletons.

•

Upper-limb motion is assessed with kinematics and EMG in many scenarios: motor control, physiology, rehabilitation, industry

•

Separation of phasic (movement-related) and tonic (postural) EMG, and of acceleration and deceleration phases

•

Comprehensive and detailed characterization of the EMG of upper-limb and trunk muscles in point-to-point upper limb movements

•

EMG magnitude assessment, phasic and tonic EMG activations, directional tuning, acceleration and deceleration phases

FITFES: A Wearable Myoelectrically Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulator Designed Using a User-Centered Approach

Myoelectrically Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation (MeCFES) has proven to be a useful tool in the rehabilitation of the hemiplegic arm. This paper reports the steps involved in the development of a wearable MeCFES device (FITFES) through a user-centered design. We defined the minimal viable features and functionalities requirements for the device design from a questionnaire-based survey among physiotherapists with experience in functional electrical stimulation. The result was a necklace layout that poses minimal hindrance to task-oriented movement therapy, the context in which it is aimed to be used. FITFES is battery-powered and embeds a standard low power Bluetooth module, enabling wireless control by using PC/Mobile devices vendor specific built-in libraries. It is designed to deliver a biphasic, charge-balanced stimulation current pulses of up to 113 mA with a maximum differential voltage of 300 V. The power consumption for typical clinical usage is 320 mW at 20mA stimulation current and of less than [Formula: see text] in sleep mode, thus ensuring an estimated full day of FITFES therapy on a battery charge. We conclude that a multidisciplinary user-centered approach can be successfully applied to the design of a clinically and ergonomically viable prototype of a wearable myoelectrically controlled functional electrical stimulator to be used in rehabilitation.

Sequentially applied myoelectrically controlled FES in a task-oriented approach and robotic therapy for the recovery of upper limb in post-stroke patients: A randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Functional recovery of the plegic upper limb in post-stroke patients may be enhanced by sequentially applying a myoelectrically controlled FES (MeCFES), which allows the patient to voluntarily control the muscle contraction during a functional movement, and robotic therapy which allows many repetitions of movements.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the efficacy of MeCFES followed by robotic therapy compared to standard care arm rehabilitation for post-stroke patients.

METHODS

Eighteen stroke subjects (onset ⩾ 3 months, age 60.1 ± 15.5) were recruited and randomized to receive an experimental combination of MeCFES during task-oriented reaching followed by robot therapy (MRG) or same intensity conventional rehabilitation care (CG) aimed at the recovery of the upper limb (20 sessions/45 minutes). Change was evaluated through Fugl-Meyer upper extremity (FMA-UE), Reaching Performance Scale and Box and Block Test.

RESULTS

The experimental treatment resulted in higher improvement on the FMA-UE compared with CG (P= 0.04), with a 10-point increase following intervention. Effect sizes were moderate in favor of the MRG group on FMA-UE, FMA-UE proximal and RPS (0.37-0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings indicate that a combination of MeCFES and robotic treatment may be more effective than standard care for recovery of the plegic arm in persons > 3 months after stroke. The mix of motor learning techniques may be important for successful rehabilitation of arm function.

Effects of robot therapy on upper body kinematics and arm function in persons post stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robot-based rehabilitation for persons post-stroke may improve arm function and daily-life activities as measured by clinical scales, but its effects on motor strategies during functional tasks are still poorly investigated. This study aimed at assessing the effects of robot-therapy versus arm-specific physiotherapy in persons post-stroke on motor strategies derived from upper body instrumented kinematic analysis, and on arm function measured by clinical scales.

METHODS

Forty persons in the sub-acute and chronic stage post-stroke were recruited. This sample included all those subjects, enrolled in a larger bi-center study, who underwent instrumented kinematic analysis and who were randomized in Center 2 into Robot (R_Group) and Control Group (C_Group). R_Group received robot-assisted training. C_Group received arm-specific treatment delivered by a physiotherapist. Pre- and post-training assessment included clinical scales and instrumented kinematic analysis of arm and trunk during a virtual untrained task simulating the transport of an object onto a shelf. Instrumented outcomes included shoulder/elbow coordination, elbow extension and trunk sagittal compensation. Clinical outcomes included Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment of Upper Extremity (FM-UE), modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM).

RESULTS

R_Group showed larger post-training improvements of shoulder/elbow coordination (Cohen's d = - 0.81, p = 0.019), elbow extension (Cohen's d = - 0.71, p = 0.038), and trunk movement (Cohen's d = - 1.12, p = 0.002). Both groups showed comparable improvements in clinical scales, except proximal muscles MAS that decreased more in R_Group (Cohen's d = - 0.83, p = 0.018). Ancillary analyses on chronic subjects confirmed these results and revealed larger improvements after robot-therapy in the proximal portion of FM-UE (Cohen's d = 1.16, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted rehabilitation was as effective as arm-specific physiotherapy in reducing arm impairment (FM-UE) in persons post-stroke, but it was more effective in improving motor control strategies adopted during an untrained task involving vertical movements not practiced during training. Specifically, robot therapy induced larger improvements of shoulder/elbow coordination and greater reduction of abnormal trunk sagittal movements. The beneficial effects of robot therapy seemed more pronounced in chronic subjects. Future studies on a larger sample should be performed to corroborate present findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03530358. Registered 21 May 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke

BACKGROUND

Motor neuroprosthesis (MN) involves electrical stimulation of neural structures by miniaturized devices to allow the performance of tasks in the natural environment in which people live (home and community context), as an orthosis. In this way, daily use of these devices could act as an environmental facilitator for increasing the activities and participation of people with stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of MN for improving independence in activities of daily living (ADL), activities involving limbs, participation scales of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity, balance, and adverse events in people after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (searched 19 August 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (August 2019), MEDLINE (1946 to 16 August 2019), Embase (1980 to 19 August 2019), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries, databases, and websites to identify additional relevant published, unpublished, and ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized controlled cross-over trials comparing MN for improving activities and participation versus other assistive technology device or MN without electrical stimulus (stimulator is turned off), or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third review author. We contacted trialists for additional information when necessary and performed all analyses using Review Manager 5. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving a total of 831 participants who were more than three months poststroke. All RCTs were of MN that applied electrical stimuli to the peroneal nerve. All studies included conditioning protocols to adapt participants to MN use, after which participants used MN from up to eight hours per day to all-day use for ambulation in daily activities performed in the home or community context. All studies compared the use of MN versus another assistive device (ankle-foot orthosis [AFO]). There was a high risk of bias for at least one assessed domain in three of the four included studies. No studies reported outcomes related to independence in ADL. There was low-certainty evidence that AFO was more beneficial than MN on activities involving limbs such as walking speed until six months of device use (mean difference (MD) -0.05 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to -0.00; P = 0.03; 605 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); however, this difference was no longer present in our sensitivity analysis (MD -0.07 m/s, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.02; P = 0.13; 110 participants; 1 study; I² = 0%). There was low to moderate certainty that MN was no more beneficial than AFO on activities involving limbs such as walking speed between 6 and 12 months of device use (MD 0.00 m/s, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; P = 0.93; 713 participants; 3 studies; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence), Timed Up and Go (MD 0.51 s, 95% CI -4.41 to 5.43; P = 0.84; 692 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile (MD 14.77 s, 95% CI -12.52 to 42.06; P = 0.29; 605 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There was no significant difference in walking speed when MN was delivered with surface or implantable electrodes (test for subgroup differences P = 0.09; I² = 65.1%). For our secondary outcomes, there was very low to moderate certainty that MN was no more beneficial than another assistive device for participation scales of HRQoL (standardized mean difference 0.26, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.74; P = 0.28; 632 participants; 3 studies; I² = 77%; very low-certainty evidence), exercise capacity (MD -9.03 m, 95% CI -26.87 to 8.81; P = 0.32; 692 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), and balance (MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.96 to 1.28; P = 0.68; 692 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Although there was low- to moderate-certainty evidence that the use of MN did not increase the number of serious adverse events related to intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.33; P = 0.36; 692 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or number of falls (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; P = 0.08; 802 participants; 3 studies; I² = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence), there was low-certainty evidence that the use of MN in people after stroke may increase the risk of participants dropping out during the intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.97; P = 0.007; 829 participants; 4 studies; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates that MN is no more beneficial than another assistive technology device for improving activities involving limbs measured by Timed Up and Go, balance (moderate-certainty evidence), activities involving limbs measured by walking speed and modified Emory Functional Ambulation Profile, exercise capacity (low-certainty evidence), and participation scale of HRQoL (very low-certainty evidence). Evidence was insufficient to estimate the effect of MN on independence in ADL. In comparison to other assistive devices, MN does not appear to increase the number of falls (moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence), but may result in a higher number of dropouts during intervention period (low-certainty evidence).

Effectiveness of electrical stimulation therapy in improving arm function after stroke: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation in arm function recovery after stroke.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases from their inception until 12 January 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of electrical stimulation on the recovery of arm function after stroke were selected.

RESULTS

Forty-eight RCTs with a total of 1712 patients were included in the analysis. The body function assessment, Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment, indicated more favorable outcomes in the electrical stimulation group than in the placebo group immediately after treatment (23 RCTs (n = 794): standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.51-0.84) and at follow-up (12 RCTs (n = 391): SMD = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.35-0.97). The activity assessment, Action Research Arm Test, revealed superior outcomes in the electrical stimulation group than those in the placebo group immediately after treatment (10 RCTs (n = 411): SMD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.39-1.02) and at follow-up (8 RCTs (n = 289): SMD = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.34-1.52). Other activity assessments, including Wolf Motor Function Test, Box and Block Test, and Motor Activity Log, also revealed superior outcomes in the electrical stimulation group than those in the placebo group. Comparisons between three types of electrical stimulation (sensory, cyclic, and electromyography-triggered electrical stimulation) groups revealed no significant differences in the body function and activity.

CONCLUSION

Electrical stimulation therapy can effectively improve the arm function in stroke patients.

Electromyogram-Related Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Restoring Wrist and Hand Movement in Poststroke Hemiplegia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Clinical trials have demonstrated some benefits of electromyogram-triggered/controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation (EMG-NMES) on motor recovery of upper limb (UL) function in patients with stroke. However, EMG-NMES use in clinical practice is limited due to a lack of evidence supporting its effectiveness. Objective. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of EMG-NMES on stroke UL recovery based on each of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domains. Methods. Database searches identified clinical trials comparing the effect of EMG-NMES versus no treatment or another treatment on stroke upper extremity motor recovery. A meta-analysis was done for outcomes at each ICF domain (Body Structure and Function, Activity and Participation) at posttest (short-term) and follow-up periods. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on stroke chronicity (acute/subacute, chronic phases). Sensitivity analysis was done by removing studies rated as poor or fair quality (PEDro score <6). Results. Twenty-six studies (782 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Fifty percent of them were considered to be of high quality. The meta-analysis showed that EMG-NMES has a robust short-term effect on improving UL motor impairment in the Body Structure and Function domain. No evidence was found in favor of EMG-NMES for the Activity and Participation domain. EMG-NMES had a stronger effect for each ICF domain in chronic (≥3 months) compared to acute/subacute phases. Conclusion. EMG-NMES is effective in the short term in improving UL impairment in individuals with chronic stroke.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2018), Embase (1980 to January 2018), CINAHL (1982 to January 2018), AMED (1985 to January 2018), SPORTDiscus (1949 to January 2018), PEDro (searched February 2018), Compendex (1972 to January 2018), and Inspec (1969 to January 2018). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 trials (involving 1619 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.52, P = 0.0005; I² = 59%; 24 studies, 957 participants, high-quality evidence), arm function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%, 41 studies, 1452 participants, high-quality evidence), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, P = 0.003, I² = 76%, 23 studies, 826 participants, high-quality evidence). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant dropout (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.93, I² = 0%, 45 studies, 1619 participants, high-quality evidence), and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution although the quality of the evidence was high, because there were variations between the trials in: the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; participant characteristics; and measurements used.

Arm rehabilitation in post stroke subjects: A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of myoelectrically driven FES applied in a task-oriented approach

Purpose

Motor recovery of persons after stroke may be enhanced by a novel approach where residual muscle activity is facilitated by patient-controlled electrical muscle activation. Myoelectric activity from hemiparetic muscles is then used for continuous control of functional electrical stimulation (MeCFES) of same or synergic muscles to promote restoration of movements during task-oriented therapy (TOT). Use of MeCFES during TOT may help to obtain a larger functional and neurological recovery than otherwise possible.

Study design

Multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Eighty two acute and chronic stroke victims were recruited through the collaborating facilities and after signing an informed consent were randomized to receive either the experimental (MeCFES assisted TOT (M-TOT) or conventional rehabilitation care including TOT (C-TOT). Both groups received 45 minutes of rehabilitation over 25 sessions. Outcomes were Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE) scores and Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire.

Results

Sixty eight subjects completed the protocol (Mean age 66.2, range 36.5–88.7, onset months 12.7, range 0.8–19.1) of which 45 were seen at follow up 5 weeks later. There were significant improvements in both groups on ARAT (median improvement: MeCFES TOT group 3.0; C-TOT group 2.0) and FMA-UE (median improvement: M-TOT 4.5; C-TOT 3.5). Considering subacute subjects (time since stroke < 6 months), there was a trend for a larger proportion of improved patients in the M-TOT group following rehabilitation (57.9%) than in the C-TOT group (33.2%) (difference in proportion improved 24.7%; 95% CI -4.0; 48.6), though the study did not meet the planned sample size.

Conclusion

This is the first large multicentre RCT to compare MeCFES assisted TOT with conventional care TOT for the upper extremity. No adverse events or negative outcomes were encountered, thus we conclude that MeCFES can be a safe adjunct to rehabilitation that could promote recovery of upper limb function in persons after stroke, particularly when applied in the subacute phase.

Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Stroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD -0.10; CI [-0.59, 0.38], n = 35). Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

FES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42015025162 , Date:11/08/2015.

Neuro-fuzzy models for hand movements induced by functional electrical stimulation in able-bodied and hemiplegic subjects

Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) may be effective as a therapeutic treatment for improving functional reaching and grasping. Upper-limb FES models for predicting joint torques/angles from stimulation parameters can be useful to support the iterative design and development of neuroprostheses. Most such models focused on shoulder or elbow joints and were defined for fixed electrode configurations. This work proposes the use of a Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Network (RFNN) for modeling FES induced wrist, thumb, and finger movements based on surface multi-field electrodes and kinematic data from able-bodied and neurologically impaired subjects. Different combinations of structure parameters comprising fuzzy term numbers and feedback approaches were tested and analyzed in order to see their effect on the model performance for six subjects. The results showed mean success rates in the range from 60% to 99% and best success rates in the range from 78% to 100% on test data for all subjects. No common trend was found across subjects regarding structure parameters. The model showed the ability to successfully reproduce the response to FES for both able-bodied and hemiplegic subjects at least with one of the tested combinations.

RETRACTED: Electrical Stimulation for Hemiplegic Shoulder Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Randomized Controlled Trials

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the co-Editors-in-Chief. The article plagiarizes a paper that was published in BioMed Research International, Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 729768, 14 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/729768. Nearly the entire introduction and sections of the methods, limitations and conclusions duplicate the BioMed Research International paper. One of the conditions of submission of a paper to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is that authors declare explicitly that the paper is an original work and not duplicative of prior work unless that work is cited properly. The duplication in this manuscript is a severe abuse of the scientific publishing system. The scientific community takes a very strong view on this matter.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

BACKGROUND

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), AMED (1985 to March 2015), SPORTDiscus (1949 to March 2015), PEDro (searched April 2015), Compendex (1972 to March 2015), and Inspec (1969 to March 2015). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials (involving 1160 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.64, P = 0.005, I² = 62%), arm function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70, P = 0.04, I² = 72%), but the quality of the evidence was low to very low. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant drop-out (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03, P = 0.84, I² = 0%) with moderate-quality evidence, and adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm and hand training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm and hand function, and arm and hand muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because the quality of the evidence was low to very low, and there were variations between the trials in the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; and participant characteristics.

Upper limb functional electrical stimulation devices and their man-machine interfaces

Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) is a technique that uses electricity to activate the nerves of a muscle that is paralysed due to hemiplegia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injury (SCI). FES has been widely used to restore upper limb functions in people with hemiplegia and C5-C7 tetraplegia and has improved their ability to perform their activities of daily living (ADL). At the time of writing, a detailed literature review of the existing upper limb FES devices and their man-machine interfaces (MMI) showed that only the NESS H200 was commercially available. However, the rigid arm splint doesn't fit everyone and prevents the use of a tenodesis grip. Hence, a robust and versatile upper limb FES device that can be used by a wider group of people is required.

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.

Wrist Rehabilitation Assisted by an Electromyography-Driven Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Robot After Stroke

BACKGROUND

Augmented physical training with assistance from robot and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) may introduce intensive motor improvement in chronic stroke.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rehabilitation effectiveness achieved by NMES robot-assisted wrist training and that by robot-assisted training.

METHODS

This study was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up. Twenty-six hemiplegic subjects with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to receive 20-session wrist training with an electromyography (EMG)-driven NMES robot (NMES robot group, n = 11) and with an EMG-driven robot (robot group, n = 15), completed within 7 consecutive weeks. Clinical scores, Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Modified Ashworth Score (MAS), and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were used to evaluate the training effects before and after the training, as well as 3 months later. An EMG parameter, muscle co-contraction index, was also applied to investigate the session-by-session variation in muscular coordination patterns during the training.

RESULTS

The improvement in FMA (shoulder/elbow, wrist/hand) obtained in the NMES robot group was more significant than the robot group (P < .05). Significant improvement in ARAT was achieved in the NMES robot group (P < .05) but absent in the robot group. NMES robot-assisted training showed better performance in releasing muscle co-contraction than the robot-assisted across the training sessions (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The NMES robot-assisted wrist training was more effective than the pure robot. The additional NMES application in the treatment could bring more improvements in the distal motor functions and faster rehabilitation progress.

The influence of functional electrical stimulation on hand motor recovery in stroke patients: a review

Neuromuscular stimulation has been used as one potential rehabilitative treatment option to restore motor function and improve recovery in patients with paresis. Especially stroke patients who often regain only limited hand function would greatly benefit from a therapy that enhances recovery and restores movement. Multiple studies investigated the effect of functional electrical stimulation on hand paresis, the results however are inconsistent. Here we review the current literature on functional electrical stimulation on hand motor recovery in stroke patients. We discuss the impact of different parameters such as stage after stoke, degree of impairment, spasticity and treatment protocols on the functional outcome. Importantly, we outline the results from recent studies investigating the cortical effects elicited by functional electrical stimulation giving insights into the underlying mechanisms responsible for long-term treatment effects. Bringing together the findings from present research it becomes clear that both, treatment outcomes as well as the neurophysiologic mechanisms causing functional recovery, vary depending on patient characteristics. In order to develop unified treatment guidelines it is essential to conduct homogenous studies assessing the impact of different parameters on rehabilitative success.