FACTORS AFFECTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMBINED INTEGRATED VOLITIONAL CONTROL ELECTRICAL STIMULATOR (IVES) IN PATIENTS WITH REDUCTION OF UPPER LIMB MOBILITY DUE TO ISCHEMIC STROKE
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To analyze some factors affecting the effectiveness of combined integrated volitional control electrical stimulator (IVES) in patients with reduction of upper limb mobility due to ischemic stroke. Subjects and methods: Interventional study, pre- and post-treatment evaluation on 30 patients with reduction of upper limb mobility due to ischemic stroke treated at Hanoi Rehabilitation Hospital from August 2023 to September 2024. Results: Females had a higher level of improvement than males after 4 weeks with the ARAT scale. Regarding age groups, the group over 65 years old had a lower level of improvement in FMA-UE scores than the group under 50 years old (p<0.05). The group with limb sensory disturbances had lower FMA scores than the group without limb sensory disturbances with scores of 7.7 and 11.3, respectively. Similarly, the group with limb sensory disturbance had a lower ARAT score than the group without limb sensory disturbance with scores of 5.3 and 8.6, respectively (p<0.05). However, no significant difference was found in the characteristics of the paralyzed hand and the time of stroke on the improvement of FMA-UE and ARAT scores (p>0.05). Conclusion: Female gender, patients under 50 years old had a higher improvement level than male gender and the group over 65 years old. The group with limb sensory disturbance had a lower improvement level than the group without limb sensory disturbance, while no significant difference was found in the characteristics of the paralyzed hand and the time of stroke on the improvement level.
Article Details
Keywords
Influencing factors, ischemic stroke, reduced upper limb mobility, IVES.
References
2. Veerbeek JM, Kwakkel G, van Wegen EE et al. Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke:a systematic review. Stroke.2011;42(5):1482-8.
3. Langhorne P. Evidence behind stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.2003;74:18iv–1821.
4. Chen X, Liu F, Yan Z, et al. Therapeutic effects of sensory input training on motor function rehabilitation after stroke. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(48):e13387.
5. Merzenich MM, Jenkins WM. Reorganization of cortical representations of the hand following alterations of skin inputs induced by nerve injury, skin island transfers, and experience. J Hand Ther. 1993; 6(2):89-104.
6. Sawaki L, Wu CW, Kaelin-Lang A, et al. Effects of somatosensory stimulation on use-dependent plasticity in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2006; 37(1):246-7.
7. Serrada I, Hordacre B, Hillier SL. Does Sensory Retraining Improve Sensation and Sensorimotor Function Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Neurosci. 2019; 13(402).
8. Hara Y. Neurorehabilitation with new functional electrical stimulation for hemiparetic upper extremity in stroke patients. J Nippon Med Sch. 2008; 75(1):4-14.