Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:25:58.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Electrical stimulation in cerebral palsy: a randomized controlled trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2006

Claire Kerr
Affiliation:
Gait Analysis Laboratory, UK.
Brona McDowell
Affiliation:
Gait Analysis Laboratory, UK.
Aidan Cosgrove
Affiliation:
Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Deirdre Walsh
Affiliation:
Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.
Ian Bradbury
Affiliation:
School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.
Suzanne McDonough
Affiliation:
Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.
Get access

Abstract

A randomized placebo-controlled trial was carried out to investigate the efficacy of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and threshold electrical stimulation (TES) in strengthening the quadriceps muscles of both legs in children with cerebral palsy (CP). Sixty children (38 males, 22 females; mean age 11y [SD 3y 6mo]; age range 5–16y) were randomized to one of the following groups: NMES (n=18), TES (n=20), or placebo (n=22). Clinical presentations were diplegia (n=55), quadriplegia (n=1), dystonia (n=1), ataxia (n=1), and non-classifiable CP (n=2). Thirty-four children walked unaided, 17 used posterior walkers, six used crutches, and the remaining three used sticks for mobility. Peak torque of the left and right quadriceps muscles, gross motor function, and impact of disability were assessed at baseline and end of treatment (16wks), and at a 6-week follow-up visit. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between NMES or TES versus placebo for strength or function. Statistically significant differences were observed between NMES and TES versus placebo for impact of disability at the end of treatment, but only between TES and placebo at the 6-week follow-up. In conclusion, further evidence is required to show whether NMES and/or TES may be useful as an adjunct to therapy in ambulatory children with diplegia who find resistive strengthening programmes difficult.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
2006 Mac Keith Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)