Application of cross-migration theory in limb rehabilitation of stroke patients with hemiplegia

Table 1 Comparison of general data between experimental and control

Parameter	Experience, mean ± SD	Control, mean ± SD
Number	60	60
Left hemiplegia, n	44	40
Right hemiplegia, n	16	20
Male sex, n	40	36
Age in yr	64.42 ± 9.12	63.82 ± 7.77
Course of disease in d	45.45 ± 15.34	49.00 ± 14.90
Height in cm	165.42 ± 6.91	164.45 ± 7.12
Weight in kg	64.25 ± 8.05	63.62 ± 9.64

There was no significant difference between baselines of experience and control.

Table 2 Comparison of function assessment scale before and after training

Indication	Treatment, mean ± SD		Control, mean ± SD
	Before training	After training	Before training	After training
FMA score, points	20.05 ± 3.06	26.55 ± 2.66	19.15 ± 3.05	23.42 ± 2.94

FMA: Function assessment scale.

Table 3 Comparison of maximum voluntary contract before and after training

Group	Cases, n	MVC of tibialis anterior muscle, kg, mean ± SD		MVC of gastrocnemius, kg, mean ± SD
		Contralateral	Affected side	Contralateral	Affected side
Treatment group
Before training	60	10.43 ± 2.16	4.87 ± 2.08	11.07 ± 2.66	4.00 ± 1.36
After training	60	12.86 ± 1.75	8.21 ± 1.53	13.65 ± 2.86	7.77 ± 1.16
Control group
Before training	60	9.82 ± 1.84	4.44 ± 2.03	10.91 ± 2.26	3.86 ± 1.55
After training	60	10.22 ± 1.54	6.97 ± 1.68	11.44 ± 2.34	6.87 ± 1.42

MVC: Maximum voluntary contract.

Table 4 Comparison of integrated electromyography values before and after training

Group	Cases, n	Tibial anterior muscle IEMG, mV, mean ± SD		Gastrocnemius IEMG, mV, mean ± SD
		Contralateral	Affected side	Contralateral	Affected side
Treatment groups
Before training	60	60.05 ± 15.97	34.55 ± 5.76	49.71 ± 10.96	12.42 ± 6.11
After training	60	76.89 ± 8.41	58.45 ± 6.66	62.82 ± 8.76	32.45 ± 6.25
Control groups
Before training	60	58.82 ± 16.07	32.71 ± 7.42	48.91 ± 10.97	12.31 ± 7.22
After training	60	62.05 ± 15.54	50.05 ± 10.35	50.65 ± 10.38	27.85 ± 7.91

IEMG: Integrated electromyography value.