Electrical stimulation and splinting were not clearly more effective than splinting alone for contracture management after acquired brain injury: a randomised trial

QuestionIs electrical stimulation and splinting more effective than splinting alone for the management of wrist contracture following acquired brain injury?DesignA multi-centre randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis.ParticipantsThirty-six adults with first stroke or traumatic brain injury and mild to moderate wrist flexion contractures.InterventionThe experimental group received electrical stimulation to the wrist and finger extensor muscles for 1 hour a day over 4 weeks while the control group did not. Both groups wore a splint for 12 hours a day during this 4-week period.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was passive wrist extension measured with a 3Nm torque and with the fingers in extension. Secondary outcomes included passive wrist extension, wrist and finger extensor strength, wrist flexor spasticity, motor control of the hand, and Global Perceived Effect of Treatment, and perception of treatment credibility. Outcome measures were taken at baseline, at the end of the intervention period (4 weeks), and after a 2-week follow-up period (6 weeks).ResultsAt 4 and 6 weeks, the mean between-group difference (95% CI) for passive wrist extension was 7 degrees (–2 to 15) and –3 degrees (–13 to 7), respectively. Secondary outcomes were statistically non-significant or were of borderline statistical significance.ConclusionIt is not clear whether electrical stimulation and splinting is more effective than splinting alone for the management of wrist contracture after acquired brain injury. Therapists’ confidence in the efficacy of electrical stimulation for contracture management is not yet justified