阴极经颅直流电刺激对卒中患者上肢运动功能的影响

发布时间：2018-03-23 09:20

本文选题：卒中　切入点：上肢功能障碍　出处：《中国脑血管病杂志》2017年12期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的探讨阴极经颅直流电刺激(ct DCS)对卒中患者上肢运动功能的影响。方法前瞻性纳入2016年7月至2017年2月在首都医科大学宣武医院接受康复治疗的初发卒中后偏瘫患者45例,病程为1~6个月。按随机数字表法分为ct DCS 1.0 mA、2.0 mA和对照组各15例。3组患者均接受传统康复训练,2次/d,45 min/次,5 d/周,持续2周。1.0 mA组和2.0 mA组在此基础上,周期给予1.0 mA或2.0 mA的ct DCS治疗,1次/d,20 min/次,5 d/周,对照组仅接受假刺激。于治疗前及治疗后2周进行上肢功能评定。采用简式Fugl-Meyer运动功能评分(FMA)和手臂动作调查测试量表(ARAT)评价上肢运动功能。组内治疗前后比较采用配对t检验,组间比较采用单因素方差分析。结果 (1)治疗前3组患者上肢FMA评分、ARAT评分和MBI评分,差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05);治疗后2周,3组患者的上肢FMA评分、ARAT评分和MBI评分均与同组治疗前比较明显提高,1.0 mA组差值分别为(12±3)、(10±2)、(22±9)分;2.0 mA组差值分别为(12±3)、(10±3)、(20±6)分,对照组差值分别为(9±3)、(7±3)、(18±7)分,差异均有统计学意义(均P0.01)。(2)治疗后2周1.0 mA组和2.0 mA组的上肢FMA评分和ARAT评分均优于对照组,两组FMA评分比较均P0.01,ARAT评分比较均P0.05;而1.0 mA组和2.0 mA组间评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ct DCS有改善卒中患者上肢运动功能的趋势,但ct DCS强度1.0 mA与2.0 mA的治疗效果无明显差异。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the effect of cathodic transcranial direct current stimulation on motor function of upper limb in stroke patients. Methods 45 patients with primary stroke hemiplegia received rehabilitation treatment from July 2016 to February 2017 in Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University. The course of disease ranged from 1 to 6 months. According to the random digital table method, the patients were divided into two groups: ct DCS 1.0 Ma 2.0mA and control group (15 cases). All patients received traditional rehabilitation training twice / d / d 45 min/ / week for 5 days / week, lasting for 2 weeks .1.0 Ma group and 2 0 Ma group. Every 10 Ma or 2 0 Ma ct DCS was given once a / 20 min/ / week, The control group received only false stimulation. The upper limb function was assessed before and 2 weeks after treatment. The upper limb motor function was evaluated by simple Fugl-Meyer motor function scale and arm motion survey scale (ARATT). Using paired t test, Results: before treatment, the upper limb FMA score, arat score and MBI score of the 3 groups were compared. After 2 weeks of treatment, the FMA score and MBI score of upper limbs in the three groups were significantly higher than those in the same group. The difference was 12 卤3 卤10 卤2 + 2 卤9 in group A and 20 卤6 in group 2. 0 Ma, the difference between the two groups was 12 卤3, 10 卤3, 10 卤10 卤3, and 20 卤6, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was not significant (P0. 05, P < 0. 05, P < 0. 05), and the difference between the two groups was 12 卤3, 10 卤3, 10 卤3, and 20 卤6, respectively, compared with that of the same group (P 0. 05). The difference between the control group and the control group was 9 卤3, 7 卤3, 18 卤7, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.01. 01). The upper limb FMA score and ARAT score of the 1.0 Ma group and 2 0 Ma group were better than those of the control group 2 weeks after treatment. There was no significant difference in FMA score between group 1.0 Ma and group 2.0 Ma (P 0.05). Conclusion CT DCS has a tendency to improve motor function of upper extremity in patients with stroke, but there is no significant difference in score between group 1.0 Ma and group 2.0mA.Conclusion CT DCS has a tendency to improve motor function of upper extremity in patients with stroke. However, there was no significant difference in the therapeutic effect between 1.0 Ma and 2.0 Ma in the intensity of ct DCS.
【作者单位】：首都医科大学宣武医院康复医学科;
【基金】：国家自然科学基金面上项目(81371194)
【分类号】：R743.3

【相似文献】