CLINICAL STUDY ON THE EFFICACY OF THE DEVICE FOR ELECTROSTIMULATION WITH BIO-CONTROL IN REHABILITATION OF PATIENTS WITH MOTOR DEFICIENCY SUFFERED FROM CEREBRAL STROKE

Authors:

Abstract:

Vascular diseases of the brain nervous system are one of the main problems in the modern and, as predictions show, future medicine. At present, great importance in the processes of rehabilitation after a stroke is attached to neuroplasticity of the brain. This approach is implemented in a new class of TRENAR® electronic devices for biologically adequate movements control. The purpose of the study was to assess the functional capabilities of the TRENAR-01® software device in the restoration of voluntary movements in patients with impaired central motor neuron function due to the past acute cerebrovascular event. Clinical neurological examination and treatment of 30 cerebral stroke patients were carried out. 15 electrical stimulation procedures were performed with the TRENAR-01® device. After treatment in the group of patients with acute cerebral circulatory disturbance (23 patients) no effect on the motor deficiency regression was only observed in one case; in patients with long-term consequences of cerebral circulatory disorders (7 patients) there was a positive tendency in motor deficiency reducing. The efficacy of training the damaged limb movements according to the program, proceeding from voluntary reductions of symmetrical healthy muscles in paralyzed patients is reliably proved (p <0.005). The “Donor” program is expedient at the early stages of rehabilitation in the absence of a cognitive disorder in the patient.

Keywords:

cerebral stroke rehabilitation motor deficiency “Trеnar-01” device “Donor” program

References:

1. Vovk MI. Biotekhnicheskiye sistemy upravleniya dvigatelnymi funktsiyami cheloveka. Kibernetika i vychislitelnaya tekhnika. 2017; 1 (187): 49–65. [in Russiqn]
2. Vovk MI, Halyan YeB, Ivanov VV, Shevchenko AB; vynakhidnyky; Kompyuterna prohrama «Instruktsiya dlya oznayomlennya z robotoyu aparata dlya elektrostymulyatsiyi z biokeruvannyam “Trenar-01”. Patent of Ukraine No. 53619. 12 lyut. 2014. [in Ukrainian]
3. Dorsch S, Ada L, Canning CG. EMG-triggered electrical stimulation is a feasible intervention to apply to multiple arm muscles in people early after stroke, but does not improve strength and activity more than usual therapy: a randomized feasibility trial. Clinical rehabilitation. 2014; 1, 28(5):482–90. doi:10.1177/0269215513510011
4. Fleet A, Page SJ, MacKay-Lyons M, Boe SG. Modified constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity recovery post stroke: what is the evidence? Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014; 21(4):319–31. doi:10.1310/tsr2104-319
5. Hatem SM, Saussez G, Della Faille M, Prist V, Zhang X, Dispa D, et al. Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10:442. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00442
6. Howlett OA, Lannin NA, Ada L, McKinstry C. Functional electrical stimulation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96(5):934–43. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.01.013
7. Johnson W, Onuma O, Owolabi M, Sachdev S. Stroke: a global response is needed. Bulletin of the Word Helath Organization. 2016; 94:634-634A.
8. Jonsdottir J, Thorsen R, Aprile I, Galeri S, Spannocchi G, Beghi E, Bianchi E, Montesano A, Ferrarin M.Arm rehabilitation in post stroke subjects: A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of myoelectrically driven FES applied in a task-oriented approach. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12): e0188642.Published online. 2017 Dec 4. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188642
9. Knutson JS, Gunzler DD, Wilson RD, Chae J. Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Improves Hand Dexterity in Chronic Hemiparesis. Stroke. 2016. October 1; 47(10):2596–602. doi:10.1161/Strokeaha.116.013791
10. Lamola G, Fanciullacci C, Sgherri G, Bertolucci F, Panarese A, Micera S, et al. Neurophysiological characterization of subacute stroke patients: a longitudinal study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10:574. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00574.
11. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. The Lancet Neurology. 2009. August 31; 8(8):741–54. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4
12. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011 May 14; 377(9778):1693-702. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5.
13. Li S. Spasticity, motor recovery, and neural plasticity after stroke. Front Neurol. 2017; 8:120. doi:10.3389/fneur.2017.00120
14. Quandt F, Hummel FC. The influence of functional electrical stimulation on hand motor recovery in stroke patients: a review. Experimental & translational stroke medicine. 2014. August 21; 6(1):9 doi:10.1186/2040-7378-6-9
15. Sacco RL, Kasner SE, Broderick JP, Caplan LR, Connors JJ, Culebras A, et al. An updated definition of stroke for the 21st Century: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.Stroke. 2013 Jul; 44(7):2064-89.doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e318296.

Publication:

«World of Medicine and Biology» Vol. 16 No. 74 (2020) , с. 44-48
УДК 616.831-005+615.84

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26724/2079-8334-2020-4-74-44-48