Therapeutic Treatment Comparison of Humeral Cuff, Neuro Muscular Electrical Stimulation Versus Strapping in Reduction of Pain and Subluxation Gleno Humeral Stroke Survivors

T. Karthikeyan
{"title":"Therapeutic Treatment Comparison of Humeral Cuff, Neuro Muscular Electrical Stimulation Versus Strapping in Reduction of Pain and Subluxation Gleno Humeral Stroke Survivors","authors":"T. Karthikeyan","doi":"10.31579/2834-8508/004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Stroke is characterized by acute onset of neurological dysfunction due to abnormality in cerebral circulation with resultant signs and symptoms that correspond to involvement of the focal areas of brain. Aim: The aim of the study to identify the conventional physiotherapy, humeral cuff, neuro muscular electrical stimulation versus strapping in prevention of gleno humeral subluxation and pain in stroke survivors. Methods: This study includes 30 stroke survivors with gleno humeral subluxation and pain, who met the inclusion criteria, considered for this study. The duration of study conducted for a course of 6 weeks. The outcome used in this study pain measured by VAS and motor recovery measured through FMA. Group A undergone conventional physiotherapy, humeral cuff with strapping. Group B treatment applied conventional physiotherapy, humeral cuff with NMES. Results: The results of study shows that visual analogue scale between Group A pre mean score 7.47 and post mean score 5.20(P<0.5).Group B, pre mean score 7.60 and post mean score 3.20(P<0.5). The results of study shows that FMA between Group A pre mean score 39.33 and post mean score 46.00(P<0.5).Group B-FMA, pre mean score40.3 and post mean score 51.47 (P<0.5). Conclusion: The author concluded that both therapeutic treatment strategy of humeral cuff, neuro muscular electrical stimulation versus strapping which helps in prevention of gleno humeral subluxation and pain in stroke survivors. But statistical analysis which supports the Humeral Cuff, Neuro Muscular Electrical Stimulation is significantly better form treatment than Strapping for management of stroke survivors. This study also help to improve upper limb motor recovery, reduce pain, prevent gleno humeral subluxation, overall health, upper extremity muscular function, Gross motor and fine motor function, wellbeing, livelihood of stroke survivors.","PeriodicalId":234436,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical and Experimental Pathology","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical and Experimental Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31579/2834-8508/004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stroke is characterized by acute onset of neurological dysfunction due to abnormality in cerebral circulation with resultant signs and symptoms that correspond to involvement of the focal areas of brain. Aim: The aim of the study to identify the conventional physiotherapy, humeral cuff, neuro muscular electrical stimulation versus strapping in prevention of gleno humeral subluxation and pain in stroke survivors. Methods: This study includes 30 stroke survivors with gleno humeral subluxation and pain, who met the inclusion criteria, considered for this study. The duration of study conducted for a course of 6 weeks. The outcome used in this study pain measured by VAS and motor recovery measured through FMA. Group A undergone conventional physiotherapy, humeral cuff with strapping. Group B treatment applied conventional physiotherapy, humeral cuff with NMES. Results: The results of study shows that visual analogue scale between Group A pre mean score 7.47 and post mean score 5.20(P<0.5).Group B, pre mean score 7.60 and post mean score 3.20(P<0.5). The results of study shows that FMA between Group A pre mean score 39.33 and post mean score 46.00(P<0.5).Group B-FMA, pre mean score40.3 and post mean score 51.47 (P<0.5). Conclusion: The author concluded that both therapeutic treatment strategy of humeral cuff, neuro muscular electrical stimulation versus strapping which helps in prevention of gleno humeral subluxation and pain in stroke survivors. But statistical analysis which supports the Humeral Cuff, Neuro Muscular Electrical Stimulation is significantly better form treatment than Strapping for management of stroke survivors. This study also help to improve upper limb motor recovery, reduce pain, prevent gleno humeral subluxation, overall health, upper extremity muscular function, Gross motor and fine motor function, wellbeing, livelihood of stroke survivors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肱骨袖带、神经肌肉电刺激与绑带治疗肱骨卒中患者疼痛和半脱位的疗效比较
背景:脑卒中的特点是由于脑循环异常引起的急性神经功能障碍,由此产生的体征和症状与脑局灶区受累相对应。目的:本研究的目的是确定常规物理治疗、肱骨袖带、神经肌肉电刺激与绑带在预防脑卒中幸存者肱骨半脱位和疼痛中的作用。方法:本研究纳入30例符合本研究纳入标准的肱骨关节半脱位和疼痛的中风幸存者。研究持续时间为6周。本研究采用VAS测量疼痛,FMA测量运动恢复。A组采用常规物理治疗,肱骨袖带绑扎。B组采用常规物理治疗,肱骨袖配合NMES。结果:研究结果显示,A组患者视觉模拟评分前均值为7.47分,后均值为5.20分(P<0.5)。B组患者术前平均评分7.60分,术后平均评分3.20分(P<0.5)。研究结果显示,A组患者术前平均评分39.33分,术后平均评分46.00分(P<0.5)。B-FMA组患者术前平均评分40.3,术后平均评分51.47 (P<0.5)。结论:肱骨袖带、神经肌肉电刺激与绑带两种治疗策略均有助于预防脑卒中幸存者肱骨半脱位和疼痛。但是统计分析支持肱骨袖带,神经肌肉电刺激在治疗中风幸存者方面明显优于绑带。本研究还有助于改善上肢运动恢复,减轻疼痛,预防肱骨关节半脱位,整体健康,上肢肌肉功能,大运动和精细运动功能,福祉,生活卒中幸存者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Equidistant and Plebeian- Basal Cell Carcinoma Clarion and Protuberant-Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma Synthesis of dibenzoylmethane-flavonoid hybrids as potential uv filters. Hybrids of chalcones Neutrophil‐to‐Lymphocyte and Platelet‐to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Children with Multiple Sclerosis To The Question of Active Sports During the Period of Menstrual Bleeding
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1