RESUMO
PURPOSE: This review assesses the effect of electrotherapy (e.g. functional electrical stimulation (FES), motor and sensor therapeutic electrical stimulation (TES)) on muscle strength and skeletal muscle characteristics in individuals post-stroke compared to conventional or sham therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, focusing on randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of electrotherapy. Data of interest was extracted from eligible studies, and risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 23 studies (933 people post-stroke) were included, of which 17, which mainly focus on patients in a chronic stage of stroke recovery and the implementation of FES, were incorporated in the meta-analysis. A significant increase in muscle strength was found favoring electrotherapy over conventional therapy (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.34-0.91, I2 = 37%, p = 0.07) and over sham therapy (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.68, I2 = 38%, p = 0.08). Three studies investigated the effect on muscle thickness and found a significant increase in favor of electrostimulation when compared to conventional therapy (MD 0.11 cm, 95% CI 0.06-0.16, I2 = 0%, p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests electrotherapy in combination with physiotherapy has positive effects on lower limb muscle strength and skeletal muscle characteristics in patients recovering from stroke.
As stroke is known to cause long term disability, the implementation of strengthening interventions in rehabilitation becomes an indispensable part to optimize recovery.Peripheral electrical stimulation might be a useful intervention since it has the potential to repetitively activate the sensory-motor system via electrical pulses to nerves and muscles of the paretic limb.Results of the meta-analysis indicate a beneficial effect of electrotherapy on muscle strength when compared to conventional and sham therapy, and muscle thickness when compared to conventional therapy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO - the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries. METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 26-29), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.3-1.5) and 1.4 (range 0.4-4.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCT-option). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT).