Effects of orthotic therapeutic electrical stimulation in the treatment of patients with paresis associated with acute cervical spinal cord injury

Effects of orthotic therapeutic electrical stimulation in the treatment of patients with paresis associated with acute cervical spinal cord injury - Effects of orthotic therapeutic electrical stimulation in the treatment of patients with paresis associated with acute cervical spinal cord injury

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

JPRN

Registry ID

JPRN-UMIN000026632

Enrollment

Registered

2017-03-24

Start date

2011-05-30

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-06-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Acute cervical spinal cord injury

Interventions

Between May 2011 and December 2014 Among the 134 patients who were admitted to our hospital within one week of injury, 43 patients had spinal injuries classified as grades B or C according to the Fr

and the remaining 37 patients were randomly assigned to each group. Eight patients were transferred to other hospitals within 3 months after admission because of an aggravation of their general condit

and as a result, the total number of patients who could be subjected to measurements for 3 months or longer was 29 . The TES group was composed of 15 patients (15 males, mean age: 57.7+-16.9 years).

10 minutes twice daily at 2 weeks after injury

15 minutes twice daily at 3 weeks after injury

and 20 minutes twice daily at 4 weeks after injury and thereafter. Finger extension and flexion movements were induced within a range in which there was no stimulus-induced pain. The control group wa

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Acute cervical spinal injuries classified as grades B and C according to the Frankel grading system.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Those with spinal injuries classified as grades A, D and E according to the Frankel grading system were excluded. In addition, the following were also considered as exclusion criteria for TES: patients with dementia, mental illness, patients wearing ventilators, and patients with injury to the fingers or forearms.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The evaluation items consisted of the total passive motion (TPM) of fingers ; and data was collected over time, namely at one week, one month, and three months after injury. For the TPM of the fingers, the total passive motion was measured separately on the right side and on the left side on the basis of the flexion-extension range of motion in the MP, PIP and DIP joints of the first finger to the fifth finger (14 joints, 28 motions: 1420 Deg in total).	—

Measure

Time frame

The evaluation items consisted of the total passive motion (TPM) of fingers ; and data was collected over time, namely at one week, one month, and three months after injury. For the TPM of the fingers, the total passive motion was measured separately on the right side and on the left side on the basis of the flexion-extension range of motion in the MP, PIP and DIP joints of the first finger to the fifth finger (14 joints, 28 motions: 1420 Deg in total).

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
The upper limb ASIA motor score and the edema.	—

Countries

Japan

Contacts

Public ContactKenji Iwahashi

Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Spinal Injuries Center, Fukuoka, Japan Rehabilitation

yakyumancity@yahoo.co.jp0948-24-7500

Outcome results

None listed

Source: JPRN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Jul 3, 2026