|
The purpose of this study has been conducted to reduce the lower limbs’’ spasticity of the patients with hemiplegia caused by cerebral stroke of apoplexy and find differences about spasticity effects among each group. The objects of this study covered 24 patients with hemiplgia who are either in the oo hospital in Daegu or under treatment from home to hospital. The objects fall into three groups which are a group of neurological development treatment, a group of functional stimulus treatment and a group of neurological development treatment and functional stimulus treatment. The result of this study were as follows : 1) The neurological development treatment has been found to reduce the lower limbs’’ spasticity of patients with hemiplegia caused by cerebral stroke of apoplexy and compared to before-treatment, the MAS value of spasticity has been shown to be statistically meaningful ,and gradually over the period of between 4 weeks and 8 weeks(P <.05). 2) The functional electric stimulus treatment has been shown to reduce the lower limb’’s spasticity of patients with hemiplegia caused by cerebral stroke of apoplexy and compared to before-treatment, the MAS value of spasticity was statistically meaningful and compared to 4 weeks, even at the time of 8 weeks, the MAS value of spasticity have shown statistical meaningness. (P <.05) 3) When neurological development treatment and functional electric stimulus treatment was applied at the same time, the lower limbs’’ spasticity of patients with hemiplegia was reduced meaningfully(P <.05). Compared to before-treatment at the time of 4 weeks, the MAS value of spasticity was statistically meaningful and compared to 4 weeks at the time of 8 weeks the MAS value of spasticity was also statistically meaningful(P <.05) 4) In the case of time-based MAS value of each group, functional electric stimulus treatment reduced the spasticity more meaningfully than neurological development treatment, and the group of same application of functional electric stimulus treatment and neurological development treatment showed better statistical meaningness than functional electric stimulus treatment alone(P <.05) and finally the group of same application of neurological development treatment and functional electric stimulus treatment showed more meaningful difference than neurological development treatment alone(P <.05)
|