Topics in stroke rehabilitation · 2026
Mirror therapy versus functional electrical stimulation cycling in post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Çınar Muhammed Sefa, Koyuncu Engin, Atan Tuğba, Gürçay Eda
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Stroke commonly leads to lower extremity motor impairment and reduced quality of life. Adjunctive rehabilitation approaches are often required to enhance recovery during the subacute phase.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of mirror therapy (MT) and functional electrical stimulation-assisted cycling (FES-C) as adjuncts to conventional rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke.
METHODS: Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to a control, MT, or FES-C group (n = 15 each). All participants received conventional rehabilitation, with 30 minutes replaced by MT or FES-C in the groups, 5 days per week for six weeks. Outcomes were assessed before and after treatment using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), Brunnstrom stage, Functional Independence Measure-Motor, Berg Balance Scale, Functional Ambulation Classification, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL).
RESULTS: All groups showed significant within-group improvements (p < 0.05). Compared with control, both the MT (mean difference [MD] -2.60, 95% CI - 5.83 to -0.63, p = 0.004) and FES-C groups (MD - 3.00, 95% CI - 6.23 to -0.23, p = 0.008) demonstrated greater improvements in ΔFMA-LE scores. Only the FES-C group showed significantly greater gains in ΔBrunnstrom stage (MD - 0.80, 95% CI - 1.49 to -0.10, p = 0.007) and ΔSS-QOL (MD - 19.40, 95% CI - 35.70 to -3.09, p = 0.015). No significant differences were observed between MT and FES-C (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the more advanced technological features of FES-C, MT also achieved improvements in lower extremity motor function, supporting its use as a simple and accessible adjunct intervention for post-stroke lower extremity rehabilitation.
CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT06558721.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) (NCT06558721) and available a https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06558721?term=sefa%20c%C4%B1nar&rank=1.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of mirror therapy (MT) and functional electrical stimulation-assisted cycling (FES-C) as adjuncts to conventional rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke.
METHODS: Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to a control, MT, or FES-C group (n = 15 each). All participants received conventional rehabilitation, with 30 minutes replaced by MT or FES-C in the groups, 5 days per week for six weeks. Outcomes were assessed before and after treatment using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), Brunnstrom stage, Functional Independence Measure-Motor, Berg Balance Scale, Functional Ambulation Classification, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL).
RESULTS: All groups showed significant within-group improvements (p < 0.05). Compared with control, both the MT (mean difference [MD] -2.60, 95% CI - 5.83 to -0.63, p = 0.004) and FES-C groups (MD - 3.00, 95% CI - 6.23 to -0.23, p = 0.008) demonstrated greater improvements in ΔFMA-LE scores. Only the FES-C group showed significantly greater gains in ΔBrunnstrom stage (MD - 0.80, 95% CI - 1.49 to -0.10, p = 0.007) and ΔSS-QOL (MD - 19.40, 95% CI - 35.70 to -3.09, p = 0.015). No significant differences were observed between MT and FES-C (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the more advanced technological features of FES-C, MT also achieved improvements in lower extremity motor function, supporting its use as a simple and accessible adjunct intervention for post-stroke lower extremity rehabilitation.
CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT06558721.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) (NCT06558721) and available a https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06558721?term=sefa%20c%C4%B1nar&rank=1.