Early Stroke Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb Assisted with an Electromyography-Driven Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation-Robotic Arm

Qiuyang Qian, Xiaoling Hu, Qian Lai, Stephanie C Ng, Yongping Zheng, Waisang Poon, Qiuyang Qian, Xiaoling Hu, Qian Lai, Stephanie C Ng, Yongping Zheng, Waisang Poon

Abstract

Background: Effective poststroke motor rehabilitation depends on repeated limb practice with voluntary efforts. An electromyography (EMG)-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES)-robot arm was designed for the multi-joint physical training on the elbow, the wrist, and the fingers.

Objectives: To investigate the training effects of the device-assisted approach on subacute stroke patients and to compare the effects with those achieved by the traditional physical treatments.

Method: This study was a pilot randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up. Subacute stroke participants were randomly assigned into two groups, and then received 20-session upper limb training with the EMG-driven NMES-robotic arm (NMES-robot group, n = 14) or the time-matched traditional therapy (the control, n = 10). For the evaluation of the training effects, clinical assessments including Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Modified Ashworth Score (MAS), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Function Independence Measurement (FIM) were conducted before, after the rehabilitation training, and 3 months later. Session-by-session EMG parameters in the NMES-robot group, including normalized co-contraction Indexes (CI) and EMG activation level of target muscles, were used to monitor the progress in muscular coordination patterns.

Results: Significant improvements were obtained in FMA (full score and shoulder/elbow), ARAT, and FIM [P < 0.001, effect sizes (EFs) > 0.279] for both groups. Significant improvement in FMA wrist/hand was only observed in the NMES-robot group (P < 0.001, EFs = 0.435) after the treatments. Significant reduction in MAS wrist was observed in the NMES-robot group after the training (P < 0.05, EFs = 0.145) and the effects were maintained for 3 months. MAS scores in the control group were elevated following training (P < 0.05, EFs > 0.24), and remained at an elevated level when assessed 3 months later. The EMG parameters indicated a release of muscle co-contraction in the muscle pairs of biceps brachii and flexor carpi radialis and biceps brachii and triceps brachii, as well as a reduction of muscle activation level in the wrist flexor in the NMES-robot group.

Conclusion: The NMES-robot-assisted training was effective for early stroke upper limb rehabilitation and promoted independence in the daily living comparable to the traditional physical therapy. It could achieve higher motor outcomes at the distal joints and more effective release in muscle tones than the traditional therapy.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02117089; date of registration: April 10, 2014.

Keywords: electromyography; neuromuscular electrical stimulation; robot; stroke; upper limb.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The experimental and training setup of the electromyography-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES)-robot system: (A) the mechanical exoskeleton module of the system consisted of the wrist part and the elbow part; (B) the training setup in a session assisted with the NMES-robot training system, the visual feedback interface, and the hanging system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) The electrode configuration on the target muscles, i.e., the biceps brachii (BIC), the triceps brachii (TRI), flexor carpi radialis (FCR), and the muscle union of the extensor carpi ulnaris and extensor digitorum (ECU-ED). The reference electrode was attached on the olecranon; (B) the illustration of the configuration of the electromyography electrodes and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) electrodes on a target muscle.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials flowchart of the experimental design.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The clinical scores [evaluated before the first and after the 20th training session, as well as the 3-month follow-up (3MFU)] of the participants in both neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES)-robot and control groups: (A) Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) full scores, (B) FMA shoulder/elbow scores, (C) FMA wrist/hand scores, (D) Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores, (E) Function Independence Measurement (FIM), and (F) Modified Ashworth Score (MAS) scores at the elbow, the wrist, and the fingers, presented as mean value with 2-time SE (error bar) in each evaluation session. The solid lines are for the NMES-robot group, and the dashed lines are for the control group. The significant inter-group difference is indicated by “*” (P < 0.05, one-way analysis of covariance), and “#” is used to indicate the significant intragroup difference (P < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc tests).
Figure 5
Figure 5
The variation of electromyography (EMG) parameters recorded across the 20 training sessions: (A) the changes of the normalized EMG activation levels with significant decline observed in the flexor carpi radialis (FCR) muscle (P < 0.05, 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc tests); (B) the significant decline of the normalized co-contraction Indexes (CI) values observed in the BIC&TRI and FCR&BIC muscle pairs (P < 0.05, 1-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests). The values are presented as mean value with 2-time SE (error bar) in each session.

References

    1. Nakayama H, Jørgensen H, Raaschou H, Olsen T. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil (1994) 75(4):394–8.10.1016/0003-9993(94)90161-9
    1. Dobkin B. Rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med (2005) 352(16):1677–84.10.1056/NEJMcp043511
    1. Kwakkel G, BJ K, van der Grond J, Prevo A. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke (2003) 34(9):2181–6.10.1161/
    1. Brauer S, Hayward K, Carson R, Cresswell A, Barker R. The efficacy of SMART arm training early after stroke for stroke survivors with severe upper limb disability: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Neurol (2013) 13(1):71.10.1186/1471-2377-13-71
    1. Raghavan P. Upper limb motor impairment after stroke. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am (2015) 26(4):599–610.10.1016/j.pmr.2015.06.008
    1. Good D, Bettermann K, Reichwein R. Stroke rehabilitation. Continuum. NeuroRehabilitation (2011) 17(3):545–67.10.1212/01.CON.0000399072.61943.38
    1. Zeiler S, Krakauer J. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol (2013) 26(6):609–16.10.1097/WCO.0000000000000025
    1. Ng K, Gibson E, Hubbard R, Yang W, Caffo R, Krakauer R, et al. Fluoxetine maintains a state of heightened responsiveness to motor training early after stroke in a mouse model. Stroke (2015) 46(10):2951–60.10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010471
    1. Flöel A, Werner C, Grittner U, Hesse S, Jöbges M, Knauss J, et al. Physical fitness training in subacute stroke (PHYS-STROKE) – study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials (2014) 15:45.10.1186/1745-6215-15-45
    1. Tomori K, Nagayama H, Ohno K, Nagatani R, Saito Y, Takahashi K, et al. Comparison of occupation-based and impairment-based occupational therapy for subacute stroke: a randomized controlled feasibility study. Clin Rehabil (2015) 29(8):752–62.10.1177/0269215514555876
    1. Brown T, Parmar G, Durant R, Halanych J, Hovater M, Muntner P, et al. Health professional shortage areas, insurance status, and cardiovascular disease prevention in the reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke (REGARDS) study. J Health Care Poor Underserved (2011) 22(4):1179–89.10.1353/hpu.2011.0127
    1. Nudo R, Plautz E, Frost S. Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to motor cortex. Muscle Nerve (2001) 24(8):1000–19.10.1002/mus.1104
    1. Harris J, Eng J. Strength training improves upper-limb function in individuals with stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke (2010) 41(1):136–40.10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.567438
    1. Lynch D, Ferraro M, Krol J, Trudell CM, Christos P, Volpe BT. Continuous passive motion improves shoulder joint integrity following stroke. Clin Rehabil (2005) 19(6):594–9.10.1191/0269215505cr901oa
    1. Ng K, Zhang R, Butler A, Wolf S, Alberts J. Quality-of-life change associated with robotic-assisted therapy to improve hand motor function in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther (2010) 90(4):493–504.10.2522/ptj.20090160
    1. Grimaldi G, Manto M. Functional impacts of exoskeleton-based rehabilitation in chronic stroke: multi-joint versus single-joint robotic training. J Neuroeng Rehabil (2013) 10(1):113.10.1186/1743-0003-10-113
    1. Yang C, Lin K, Chen H, Wu C, Chen C. Pilot comparative study of unilateral and bilateral robot-assisted training on upper-extremity performance in patients with stroke. Am J Occup Ther (2012) 66(2):198.10.5014/ajot.2012.003103
    1. Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Lynch D, Christos P, Krol J, Trudell C, et al. Robotics and other devices in the treatment of patients recovering from stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep (2004) 6(4):314–9.10.1007/s11883-004-0064-z
    1. Dipietro L, Ferraro M, Palazzolo J, Krebs H, Volpe B, Hogan N. Customized interactive robotic treatment for stroke: EMG-triggered therapy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng (2005) 13(3):325–34.10.1109/TNSRE.2005.850423
    1. Takahashi C, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala R, Cramer S. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain (2008) 131:425–37.10.1093/brain/awm311
    1. Staubli P, Nef T, Klamroth-Marganska V, Riener R. Effects of intensive arm training with the rehabilitation robot ARMin II in chronic stroke patients: four single-cases. J Neuroeng Rehabil (2009) 6(1):46.10.1186/1743-0003-6-46
    1. Hu X, Tong K, Song R, Zheng X, Leung W. A comparison between electromyography-driven robot and passive motion device on wrist rehabilitation for chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair (2009) 23(8):837–46.10.1177/1545968309338191
    1. Knutson J, Fu M, Sheffler L, Chae J. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for motor restoration in hemiplegia. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am (2015) 26(4):729–45.10.1016/j.pmr.2015.06.002
    1. Seneviratne C, Then K, Reimer M. Post-stroke shoulder subluxation: a concern for neuroscience nurses. Axone (2005) 27(1):26–31.
    1. Sujith O. Functional electrical stimulation in neurological disorders. Eur J Neurol (2008) 15(5):437–44.10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02127.x
    1. Chae J, Yu D. Neuromuscular stimulation for motor relearning in hemiplegia. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med (1999) 11:279–97.10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.v11.i34.40
    1. Hu X, Tong K, Wei X, Rong W, Susanto E, Ho S. The effects of post-stroke upper-limb training with an electromyography (EMG)-driven hand robot. J Electromyogr Kinesiol (2013) 23(5):1065–74.10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.07.007
    1. Hu X, Tong K, Song R, Tsang V, Leung P, Li L. Variation of muscle coactivation patterns in chronic stroke during robot-assisted elbow training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil (2007) 88(8):1022–9.10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.006
    1. Hu X, Tong K, Song R, Zheng X, Lui K, Leung W, et al. Quantitative evaluation of motor functional recovery process in chronic stroke patients during robot-assisted wrist training. J Electromyogr Kinesiol (2008) 19(4):639–50.10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.04.002
    1. Hu XL, Tong KY, Li R, Chen M, Xue JJ, Ho SK, et al. Post-stroke wrist rehabilitation assisted with an intention-driven functional electrical stimulation (FES)-robot system. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot (2011) 2011:5975424.10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975424
    1. Hu X, Tong K, Ho S, Xue J, Rong W, Li L. Wrist rehabilitation assisted by an electromyography-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES)-robot after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair (2015) 29(8):767–76.10.1177/1545968314565510
    1. Hu X, Tong K, Li R, Xue J, Ho S, Chen P. The effects of electromechanical wrist robot assistive system with neuromuscular electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol (2012) 22(3):431–9.10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.12.010
    1. Lo A, Guarino P, Richards L, Haselkorn J, Wittenberg G, Federman D, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med (2010) 362:1772–83.10.1056/NEJMoa0911341
    1. Lee Y, Lin K, Cheng H, Wu C, Hsieh Y, Chen C. Effects of combining robot-assisted therapy with neuromuscular electrical stimulation on motor impairment, motor and daily function, and quality of life in patients with chronic stroke: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil (2015) 12:96.10.1186/s12984-12015-10088-12983
    1. Boyaci A, Topuz O, Alkan H, Ozgen M, Sarsan A, Yildiz N, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of active and passive neuromuscular electrical stimulation of hemiplegic upper extremities: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Rehabil Res (2013) 36(4):315–22.10.1097/MRR.0b013e328360e541
    1. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation: stroke care 2. Lancet (2011) 377:1693–702.10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5
    1. Kamen G, Gabriel D. Essentials of Electromyography. Amherst: University of Massachusetts; (2010).
    1. Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res (1975) 12(3):189–98.10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
    1. Fugl-Meyer A, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient.1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med (1975) 7(1):13–31.
    1. Ashworth B. Preliminary trials of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner (1964) 192:540–2.
    1. Feigin V, Lawes C, Bennett D, Anderson C. Stroke epidemiology: a review of population-based studies of incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality in the late 20th century. Lancet Neurol (2003) 2(1):43–53.10.1016/S1474-4422(03)00266-7
    1. Traylor M, Rutten-Jacobs L, Holliday E, Malik R, Sudlow C, Rothwell P, et al. Differences in common genetic predisposition to ischemic stroke by age and sex. Stroke (2015) 46(11):3042–7.10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009816
    1. McDonnell M. Action research arm test. Aust J Physiother (2008) 54(3):220.10.1016/S0004-9514(08)70034-5
    1. Wallace D, Duncan PW, Lai SM. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol (2002) 55(9):922–8.
    1. Liu S, Lebeau J, Tenenbaum G. Does exercise improve cognitive performance? A conservative message from Lor’s Paradox. Front Psychol (2016) 7:1092.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01092
    1. Janet H, Roberta B. Motor Relearning Program for Stroke. 2nd ed Aspen Publishers; (1987).
    1. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar R. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet (1999) 354(9190):1642–3.10.1016/S0140-6736(05)77125-7
    1. Gillen G, Ann B. Stroke Rehabilitation: A Function-Based Approach. Elsevier; (2004). p. 38–9.
    1. Chae J, Kilgore K, Triolo R, Yu D. Neuromuscular stimulation for motor neuroprosthesis in hemiplegia. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med (2000) 12:1–23.10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.v12.i1.10
    1. Doucet B, Lam A, Griffinm L. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for skeletal muscle function. Yale J Biol Med (2012) 85:201–15.
    1. Sullivan S. Stroke: motor function. In: Sullivan S, Schmitz T, editors. Physical Rehabilitation. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; (2007). 719 p.
    1. Winstein C, Wolf S, Dromerick A, Lane C, Nelsen M, Lewthwaite R, et al. Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke: the ICARE randomized clinical trial. JAMA (2016) 351:571–81.10.1001/jama.2016.0276

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir