Somatosensory Evoked Potentials in Patients Affected by Unilateral Cerebrovascular Lesions With Onset During the Perinatal Period or Adulthood

Ferri, Raffaele; Elia, Maurizio; Musumeci, S; Cosentino, F.; Roccasalva, Giuseppe; Spada, Rosario S.; Toscano, Giuseppe

doi:10.2310/7010.2001.16888

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recovery of SEP amplitude in stroke patients is significantly correlated with the recovery of motor function (Feys et al, 2000), which can help predict the prognosis. The reason may be that the proximity of the somatosensory pathway and the motor pathway, and the central nervous system is often affected at the same time, which can respond to the extent and location of damage to the motor nerve (Nelson et al, 1986;Ferri et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Functional Electrical Stimulation on the Lower Limb Function of Stroke Patients

Zhang¹,

Gu²,

Liu³

et al. 2021

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to research the effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) on the lower limb function of post-convalescent stroke patients.Methods: A total of 122 patients in the stroke recovery stage who suffered from leg dysfunction were randomly divided into two groups: a tDCS group (n = 61) and a FES group (n = 61). All patients received same routine rehabilitation and equal treatment quality, the tDCS group was treated with tDCS, while the FES group received FES. The lower limb Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), modified Barthel index (MBI), functional ambulatory category (FAC), and somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) were used to assess the patients at three different stages: prior to treatment, 4 weeks after treatment, and 8 weeks after treatment.Results: The assessment scores for FMA, MBI, and FAC for the lower extremities after treatment (P > 0.05) were compared with those before treatment. The FMA, MBI, and FAC scores of the tDCS group were significantly higher than those of the FES group in all three stages (P < 0.05). The FMA, MBI, and FAC assessment scores of both groups were significantly higher after 4 weeks of treatment than that before treatment, and the scores after 8 weeks of treatment were significantly higher than those after 4 weeks after treatment (P < 0.05). The P40, N45 latencies decreased and the P40, N45 amplitudes increased, but there was no significant difference before treatment and after treatment (P >0.05), and there was no significant difference of the tDCS and FES groups before treatment and after treatment.Conclusion: In conclusion, FMA, MBI, and FAC indicate that both tDCS and FES can significantly promote the recovery of a patient’s leg motor function and tDCS is more effective than FES in the stroke recovery stage. The application value of SEP in stroke patients remains to be further studied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%