Display options
Cite
Steele KM, Papazian C, Feldner HA. Muscle Activity After Stroke: Perspectives on Deploying Surface Electromyography in Acute Care. Front Neurol. 2020;11:576757doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.576757.
Steele, K. M., Papazian, C., & Feldner, H. A. (2020). Muscle Activity After Stroke: Perspectives on Deploying Surface Electromyography in Acute Care. Frontiers in neurology, 11576757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.576757
Steele, Katherine M, et al. "Muscle Activity After Stroke: Perspectives on Deploying Surface Electromyography in Acute Care." Frontiers in neurology vol. 11 (2020): 576757. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.576757
Steele KM, Papazian C, Feldner HA. Muscle Activity After Stroke: Perspectives on Deploying Surface Electromyography in Acute Care. Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 23;11:576757. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.576757. eCollection 2020. PMID: 33071953; PMCID: PMC7538789.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 23;11:576757. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.576757. eCollection 2020.

Muscle Activity After Stroke: Perspectives on Deploying Surface Electromyography in Acute Care.

Frontiers in neurology

Katherine M Steele, Christina Papazian, Heather A Feldner

Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

PMID: 33071953 PMCID: PMC7538789 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.576757

Abstract

After a stroke, clinicians and patients struggle to determine if and when muscle activity and movement will return. Surface electromyography (EMG) provides a non-invasive window into the nervous system that can be used to monitor muscle activity, but is rarely used in acute care. In this perspective paper, we share our experiences deploying EMG in the clinic to monitor stroke survivors. Our experiences have demonstrated that deploying EMG in acute care is both feasible and useful. We found that current technology can be used to comfortably and non-obtrusively monitor muscle activity, even for patients with no detectable muscle activity by traditional clinical assessments. Monitoring with EMG may help clinicians quantify muscle activity, track recovery, and inform rehabilitation. With further research, we perceive opportunities in using EMG to inform prognosis, enable biofeedback training, and provide metrics necessary for supporting and justifying care. To leverage these opportunities, we have identified important technical challenges and clinical barriers that need to be addressed. Affordable wireless EMG system that can provide high-quality data with comfortable, secure interfaces that can be worn for extended periods are needed. Data from these systems need to be quickly and automatically processed to create round-ready results that can be easily interpreted and used by the clinical team. We believe these challenges can be addressed by integrating and improving current methods and technology. Deploying EMG in the clinic can open new pathways to understanding and improving muscle activity and recovery for individuals with neurologic injury in acute care and beyond.

Copyright © 2020 Steele, Papazian and Feldner.

Keywords: arm; data visualization; electromyography; paralysis; stroke; translation

References

  1. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):232-40 - PubMed
  2. Stroke. 2005 Jun;36(6):1232-40 - PubMed
  3. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957 Jun;39-A(3):492-500 - PubMed
  4. Stroke. 1992 Apr;23(4):527-31 - PubMed
  5. Phys Ther. 1993 Jul;73(7):447-54 - PubMed
  6. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1955 Dec;96(6):787-93 - PubMed
  7. Stroke. 1990 Jan;21(1):78-81 - PubMed
  8. Lancet Neurol. 2010 Dec;9(12):1228-1232 - PubMed
  9. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Feb;24(2):122-34 - PubMed
  10. Med Eng Phys. 1999 Jun;21(5):303-11 - PubMed
  11. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:1961-4 - PubMed
  12. Sensors (Basel). 2013 Sep 17;13(9):12431-66 - PubMed
  13. Brain. 2010 Apr;133(Pt 4):1224-38 - PubMed
  14. Brain. 2007 Jan;130(Pt 1):170-80 - PubMed
  15. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74 - PubMed
  16. Sensors (Basel). 2018 Apr 20;18(4): - PubMed
  17. Neurology. 1999 Jul 13;53(1):126-31 - PubMed
  18. Arch Neurol. 1989 Jun;46(6):660-2 - PubMed
  19. Stroke. 2003 Jan;34(1):134-7 - PubMed
  20. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2010;38(4):305-45 - PubMed
  21. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2007 Jun;31(2):56-63 - PubMed
  22. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):59-66 - PubMed
  23. Disabil Rehabil. 2013 Feb;35(4):291-9 - PubMed
  24. Phys Ther. 1983 Sep;63(9):1448-59 - PubMed
  25. Adv Mater. 2013 Dec 17;25(47):6839-46 - PubMed
  26. Med Eng Phys. 1998 Apr;20(3):211-5 - PubMed
  27. J Biomech. 2012 Feb 2;45(3):555-61 - PubMed
  28. Ann Biomed Eng. 2007 Sep;35(9):1532-8 - PubMed
  29. Muscle Nerve. 2005 May;31(5):535-51 - PubMed
  30. Harv Med Stud Rev. 2015 Jan;2(1):24-27 - PubMed
  31. Clin Rehabil. 2005 Sep;19(6):662-7 - PubMed
  32. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2016 Aug 17;8(32):21070-6 - PubMed
  33. J Biomech. 2010 Aug 10;43(11):2149-58 - PubMed
  34. J Hand Ther. 2011 Jul-Sep;24(3):257-64; quiz 265 - PubMed
  35. Calif Med. 1950 Oct;73(4):355-7 - PubMed
  36. Stroke. 2003 Jun;34(6):1553-66 - PubMed
  37. Int J Stroke. 2017 Jul;12(5):444-450 - PubMed
  38. Chiropr Osteopat. 2007 Mar 06;15:4 - PubMed
  39. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Apr;100(4):663-675 - PubMed
  40. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2001 Oct;36(2-3):169-74 - PubMed
  41. J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):104-14;quiz 115 - PubMed
  42. Geriatrics. 1977 Jul;32(7):85-8 - PubMed
  43. Brain. 1951 Dec;74(4):443-80 - PubMed
  44. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Aug;29(7):614-22 - PubMed
  45. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1985 Jan;19(1):48-52 - PubMed
  46. Neuropharmacology. 2000 Mar 3;39(5):842-51 - PubMed
  47. Biol Proced Online. 2006;8:11-35 - PubMed
  48. Stroke. 2004 Apr;35(4):1005-9 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support