Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke

Abstract

BackgroundMotor neuroprosthesis (MN) involves electrical stimulation of neural structures by miniaturized devices to allow the performance of tasks in the natural environment in which people live (home and community context), as an orthosis. In this way, daily use of these devices could act as an environmental facilitator for increasing the activities and participation of people with stroke. ObjectivesTo assess the e ects of MN for improving independence in activities of daily living (ADL), activities involving limbs, participation scales of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity, balance, and adverse events in people a er stroke.

Is functional electrical stimulation effective in improving walking in adults with lower limb impairment due to an upper motor neuron lesion? An umbrella review

“…Records excluded (n = 1255) characteristics of the included reviews, grouped by patient population. The majority of the reviews focused on stroke populations (n = 16), 29,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] followed by SCI (n = 5), 30,[46][47][48][49] MS (n = 2) 50,51 and one with mixed populations. 52 No reviews of PD, adult CP or TBI were found.…”

“…However, for two reviews it was not clear whether the interventions in the included studies investigated FES or NMES as defined in this umbrella review. 35,43 The majority (n = 15) of the reviews included studies reporting on both single and multi-channel stimulation, 29,30,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]45,[50][51][52] with two reviews including only studies which investigated the effect of singlechannel stimulation. 32,33 The remaining reviews did not report this information.…”

“…32,33 The remaining reviews did not report this information. 31,34,44,[46][47][48][49] Fourteen reviews stated that studies of both surface and implanted FES were included, [29][30][31]35,[37][38][39]41,49,50,52 with six reviews only including studies using surface stimulation 31,33,36,40,42,51 ; in four reviews the inclusion criteria for this were not reported. 34,[46][47][48] Information on the type of signal switch was only provided in four reviews.…”

“…34,[46][47][48] Information on the type of signal switch was only provided in four reviews. 36,41,42,52 Four reviews were known to have included studies reporting the use of both bilateral and single-leg stimulation. 30,38,39,50 The most common comparators in the interventions were ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) (n = 1 2), 29,32,34,39,41,42,44,45,[48][49][50]52 physiotherapy (n = 9) , 32,33,35,36,38,40,43,45,52 gait training (n = 7), 30,31,35,36,43,46,47 bodyweight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT), 35,[45][46][47] and exercise programmes (n = 4).…”

“…Ten reviews investigated the effects in the chronic phase 29,31,[33][34][35][39][40][41]43,44 and one review did not report this information. 37 Five reviews included studies with stroke survivors in the acute, subacute, and chronic phase.…”