Effects of FES-Rowing in Neurological Disorders (FES-ROW) (FES-ROW)

Effects of Training on a Rower Assisted by Electrostimulation of Lower Limbs in Patients With Neurological Disorders (FES-ROW)

The main objective of this project is to measure the increase in aerobic physical and metabolic capacities with a 6-month training on a rower assisted by electrostimulation of lower limbs in a population of adults with traumatic paraplegia.

Study Overview

• Status: Withdrawn
• Conditions: Spinal Cord Injuries
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: Rower assisted by electrostimulation (FES-ROW)

Detailed Description

Beyond the inability to walk, chronic paraplegic patients show an increase in their mortality from cardiovascular pathologies, compared to the same age groups of the general population. It is the hypoactivity induced by neurological impairment that is implicated in the first place in the pathogenesis of these abnormalities. The search for training methods adapted to these patients is justified to limit cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The aim of this project is to measure the increase in aerobic physical and metabolic capacities with a 6-month training on a rower assisted by electrostimulation of lower limbs in a population of adults with stabilized paraplegia (non-walkers), of traumatic origin.

Study is divided in two 3-month phases. The first consists on a training on a rowing machine with solicitation of the electrostimulated lower limbs only for a period of 3 months at the rate of 3 sessions of 30 minutes per week. The second consists on a training on a rowing machine with solicitation of the electrostimulated lower limbs and upper for a period of 3 months at the rate of 3 sessions of 30 minutes per week. The evaluations are composed of the measurement of maximum oxygen consumption, muscle and neurological parameters

• Study Type: Interventional
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• France
  • Rhône
    • Lyon, Rhône, France, 69003
      • HIA Desgenettes
    • Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d'Or, Rhône, France, 69370
      • SSR Val Rosay UGECAM

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Paraplegia with traumatic origin
• Spinal cord injury AIS (ASIA Impairment Scale) score A and B at least 12 months old
• Patient having given written consent
• Patient with social security scheme
• Ability to obtain a leg extension with a 30-minute electrostimulation program

Exclusion Criteria:

• Protected adults (person in guardianship, curators or legal protection)
• Presence of contraindication criteria to carrying out a stress test or sustained physical activity decided by the doctor following the person with spinal cord injury.
• Drug treatment with cardiovascular or antidepressant effect
• Pressure sore
• Other associated neurological pathologies (stroke, peripheral neuropathy, myopathy, head trauma, ...)
• Affection of the shoulders of any etiology that could compromise the ability to use the rower.
• Spasticity of the lower limbs: Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) greater than or equal to 2/4 (specifically quadriceps / Hamstrings)
• Participation in another study

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Prevention
• Allocation: N/A
• Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
• Masking: None (Open Label)

Number of Arms

1

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Intervention / Treatment

Experimental: Rower; Single group of 35 traumatic paraplegic patients meeting the inclusion criteria will benefit from the FES-ROW protocol during 9 months

Device: Rower assisted by electrostimulation (FES-ROW); Pre-inclusion visit; Inclusion visit; Phase 1 Rower-FES with lower limbs (Month 0 to Month 3: M0-M3):Training on a rower with solicitation of the electrostimulated lower limbs only for a period of 3 months at the rate of 3 sessions of 30 minutes per week; Interim assessment visit at Month 3 (M3); Phase 2 Rower-FES with lower limbs + upper limbs (Month 3 to Month 6: M0-M6):Training on with solicitation of the electrostimulated lower and upper limbs for a period of 3 months at the rate of 3 sessions of 30 minutes per week; Final assessment visit at Month 6 (M6); End of clinical research visit, 3 months after the end of training (Month 9, M9)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
VO2 peak at 6 months (L/min)	Comparison of the maximum oxygen consumption (VO2 peak in L/min) measured during an incremental maximum stress test on a hand ergometer between the end of training on a rower (M6) and inclusion (M0).	6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
VO2 peak at 3 and 9 months (L/min)	Comparison of the maximum oxygen consumption (VO2 peak in L/min) measured during an incremental maximum stress test on a hand ergometer between the end of first training phase (M3) and inclusion (M0) and between the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
First ventilatory threshold in the VO2max test at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months (L/min)	Comparison of the first ventilatory threshold (in L/min) in the VO2max test measured during an incremental maximum stress test on a hand ergometer between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Maximum electro-induced force at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months (Nm)	Comparison of maximum electro-induced force (in Newton) assessment with a device for measuring the force of the knee extensor muscles between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Thigh perimeter at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months (cm)	Comparison of thigh perimeter (in cm) assessment between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Maximum power at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months (Watts)	Comparison of the maximum power (in Watts) developed during the stress test on a hand ergometer between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Response to stimulation at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months (mA)	Comparison of the minimum threshold (Intensity in mA) of response to stimulation of the extensor muscles of the knee between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Assessment of spasticity at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months	Assessment of spasticity with Ashworth scale (rating from 0 to 4 which is the worst score) and Pendulum test (rating from 1 to 5 which is the worst score) between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Intensity of osteotendinous reflexes at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months	Comparison of the intensity of osteotendinous reflexes (Absent, normal and lively / diffuse / polykinetic) between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0).	9 months
Self-assessment at 0, 3, 6 and 9 months	Self-assessment with Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) between the end of first training phase (M3), the end of second phase (M6), the end of the study (M9) and inclusion (M0). GAS rating is divided in 5 levels: -2: Current level; -1: Improvement; 0: Expected level after action; +1: Level better than expected; +2: Maximum level expected	9 months
ASIA (American Spinal Injury Association) score at 0, 6 and 9 months	Comparison between the end of the study following the remanence period (M9) and the inclusion (M0) and M6 of the parameters of ASIA (American Spinal Injury Association) score.	9 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: UGECAM Rhône-Alpes
• Collaborators: Hospices Civils de Lyon; University of Lyon; University of Franche-Comté
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Julie R Di Marco, M.D, UGECAM SSR Val Rosay

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Wheeler GD, Andrews B, Lederer R, Davoodi R, Natho K, Weiss C, Jeon J, Bhambhani Y, Steadward RD. Functional electric stimulation-assisted rowing: Increasing cardiovascular fitness through functional electric stimulation rowing training in persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Aug;83(8):1093-9. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.33656.
• Popovic-Maneski L, Aleksic A, Metani A, Bergeron V, Cobeljic R, Popovic DB. Assessment of Spasticity by a Pendulum Test in SCI Patients Who Exercise FES Cycling or Receive Only Conventional Therapy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018 Jan;26(1):181-187. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2771466.
• Deley G, Denuziller J, Babault N. Functional electrical stimulation: cardiorespiratory adaptations and applications for training in paraplegia. Sports Med. 2015 Jan;45(1):71-82. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0250-2.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Estimated): April 1, 2024
• Primary Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2026

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 17, 2021
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 24, 2021
• First Posted (Actual): March 29, 2021

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimated): September 19, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 17, 2025
• Last Verified: January 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Rehabilitation; Neuroplasticity; Spinal Cord Injury; Functional Electrical Stimulation; Cardiovascular Prevention
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Central Nervous System Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Wounds and Injuries; Trauma, Nervous System; Spinal Cord Diseases; Spinal Cord Injuries
• Other Study ID Numbers: 2020-1 (FESROW); 2020-A00416-33 (Other Identifier: ID-RCB)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No