Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 1996
Electrical stimulation and biofeedback effect on recovery of tenodesis grasp: a controlled study.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kohlmeyer K M, Hill J P, Yarkony G M, Jaeger R J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation and biofeedback on the recovery of tenodesis grasp in tetraplegic individuals during the initial phase of acute rehabilitation.
DESIGN: A 2 x 2 block design was used with subjects randomized to treatment groups. Forty-five subjects completed the study.
SETTING: Inpatient occupational therapy department.
SUBJECTS: Inpatients with tetraplegia, first admission for rehabilitation after an acute spinal cord injury.
INTERVENTIONS: The four treatment groups were: conventional treatment, electrical stimulation, biofeedback, and combined electrical stimulation and biofeedback. The treatment period was between 5 and 6 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Manual muscle testing and scoring of activities of daily living performance by a blinded evaluator.
RESULTS: All four treatment groups showed improvements. No treatment group was superior to the others.
CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback and electrical stimulation alone or in combination offer no advantages over conventional rehabilitation treatment of wrist extensors in tetraplegic patients after spinal cord injury.
DESIGN: A 2 x 2 block design was used with subjects randomized to treatment groups. Forty-five subjects completed the study.
SETTING: Inpatient occupational therapy department.
SUBJECTS: Inpatients with tetraplegia, first admission for rehabilitation after an acute spinal cord injury.
INTERVENTIONS: The four treatment groups were: conventional treatment, electrical stimulation, biofeedback, and combined electrical stimulation and biofeedback. The treatment period was between 5 and 6 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Manual muscle testing and scoring of activities of daily living performance by a blinded evaluator.
RESULTS: All four treatment groups showed improvements. No treatment group was superior to the others.
CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback and electrical stimulation alone or in combination offer no advantages over conventional rehabilitation treatment of wrist extensors in tetraplegic patients after spinal cord injury.