Quick Overview
A controlled study at the University Hospital of Geneva tested EMS as FES in 120 people with painful, dropped shoulders after stroke.
All received Bobath rehab. Half also had five weeks of shoulder EMS. Scientists measured pain at rest and movement, a pain scale, x-rays of subluxation, and arm lift.
At 24 months, 80.7% of the FES group were pain-free versus 55.2% of controls. Joint position improved in 78.9% versus 58.6%. Arm lift recovered in 82.5% versus 60.3%.
Published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, those figures suggest EMS can help post-stroke shoulders.
Read the full post for methods, timelines, and the full results.
We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.
Geneva Study Found EMS Helped Painful Shoulders After Stroke
Shoulder trouble after stroke can steal sleep, mood, and movement.
A limp arm may pull the joint down. Pain then makes rehab harder.
The doctors in Switzerland asked a clear question.
Could functional electrical stimulation, a form of EMS, ease that shoulder problem?
They worked at the University Hospital of Geneva.
That hospital sits inside a country with a long scientific tradition.
The paper appeared in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
That journal is peer-reviewed and published by leading American rehabilitation bodies.
The purpose was simple.
Measure whether FES reduced shoulder pain, reduced subluxation, and helped arm motion after stroke.
From 1989 to 1993, the team followed 256 people with hemiplegia.
One hundred twenty had both a painful and a dropped shoulder.
Most had a stroke from a blocked or burst vessel.
Nineteen had brain injury with a clear one-sided paralysis.
Everyone received standard Bobath rehabilitation.
Half also received five weeks of EMS to muscles around the sore shoulder.
Assignment was alternate. Sixty people entered each group.
The machine used three daily sequences.
One long low-frequency block. One stronger 40 hertz block. One brief one-hertz finish.
Session time started at 130 minutes a day. Later weeks added a little more time.
Doctors checked pain at rest and during movement.
Patients also marked a 10-centimetre pain scale.
“No pain” meant all those checks were clear.
X-rays graded how far the humeral head had dropped.
Motor recovery meant lifting the arm to 60 degrees forward and 40 degrees out, while sitting.
Follow-up ran to 24 months.
Fifty-seven people finished in the EMS group. Fifty-eight finished in the control group.
The numbers favoured the stimulated shoulders.
At three months, 70.2% of the FES group had no shoulder pain.
Only 36.2% of the control group were pain-free. That gap was statistically clear.
At six months, 77.2% of the EMS group were pain-free.
The control figure was 46.6%.
By 12 and 24 months, 80.7% of the FES group still had no pain.
The control group sat at 55.2%.
X-rays told a similar story.
Improvement meant a normal joint or only mild grade I drop.
At six months, 73.7% of the EMS group had improved subluxation.
Only 39.7% of controls had that result.
At 12 and 24 months, 78.9% of the FES group stayed improved.
Controls reached 58.6%.
Arm motion also moved faster in the stimulated group.
At six months, 77.2% of the EMS group could meet the lift test.
Controls sat at 46.6%.
At 12 and 24 months, 82.5% of the FES group still met that mark.
The control group reached 60.3%.
Those differences were statistically significant.
Pain and motion gaps stayed significant at two years.
The x-ray gap stayed significant as well.
Researchers noted one possible bias.
People given EMS also received more attention to the shoulder.
That could colour pain scores.
X-rays are harder to talk away. The films still favoured FES.
The authors did not claim EMS replaces therapy.
Everyone kept exercising after the five-week course.
Gains held for two years in people who stayed active.
This was one controlled hospital study, not a miracle headline.
It does not prove every device or every dose will do the same.
It does show measured progress in pain, joint position, and lift after a structured EMS program.
Talk with your clinician before using any stimulator after stroke.
Devices and programs differ. Medical advice belongs with your own team.
The Geneva work still matters for a simple reason.
It put EMS next to usual rehab, then tracked real shoulders for two years.
In that group, the stimulated side showed more pain relief, more joint recovery, and more arm lift.
Featured Product
ORIEMS FIT ULTIMATE KIT 💪 is a 100% Australian award-winning product.
Voted YEAR’S BEST ⭐ for 2024 and 2025.
It is a wide-range targeted muscle stimulator enhanced with EMS technology, designed to support your fitness and relaxation routine. 🌟
Trusted by more than 10,000 happy users with over 450 five-star Google reviews. 😊
Check availability.
Product Disclaimer:
This product is designed only to support fitness and relaxation routines. It is not a medical device and has not been evaluated or registered by the TGA. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or medical condition. It may not be suitable for everyone. Please consult your doctor or healthcare practitioner before using it.
Like this Research Digest? 📚
Share it with your friends 💬👇 https://bit.ly/4rafwKR
About Our Health Research Digest
We bring you the latest and most important health research papers — simplified and easy to understand.
Each study is broken down into clear, concise summaries and engaging podcasts, with direct links to the original research so you can explore further whenever you like.
We also create content based on your requests. If you’re curious about a specific health topic or would like us to find relevant studies, simplify the findings, and turn them into a podcast, just let us know.
Don’t hesitate to reach out — we’re here to help make health research accessible and useful for you. Contact us anytime.
More EMS Research Scientists Are Studying
1. Can EMS reduce fat?
2. Can EMS increase calorie burn while sitting?
3. Can EMS support muscle toning and muscle gains?
4. Can EMS improve athletic training?
5. Can EMS play a role in muscle loss & frailty?
6. Can EMS reduce pain?
7. EMS vs TENS: What are the differences?
8. Can EMS play a role after stroke?
Research Summary
| Detail | What the paper reports |
|---|---|
| Study title | Shoulder Pain and Dysfunction in Hemiplegia: Effects of Functional Electrical Stimulation |
| Authors | Alex Chantraine, MD, PhD; Alain Baribeault, MD; Daniel Uebelhart, MD; Gérald Gremion, MD |
| Research centre | Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland |
| Journal and year | Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, March 1999; Vol. 80, pages 328–331 |
| Publisher | American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation |
| Purpose | To test whether FES (a form of EMS) reduced shoulder pain and subluxation after stroke / hemiplegia, and whether arm motion recovered better |
| Design | Controlled 24-month study; patients entered in the first month after onset; followed as inpatients then outpatients, 1989–1993 |
| Who was studied | 120 people with both a painful and subluxed hemiplegic shoulder, drawn from 256 hemiplegic patients; 92 thrombosis stroke, 9 haemorrhage stroke, 19 brain injury |
| Groups | Alternate assignment: 60 FES/EMS plus Bobath rehab; 60 Bobath rehab only. Mean age about 53 in both groups |
| EMS program | 5 weeks on muscles around the painful, dropped shoulder using a Medico-Compex stimulator; 3 daily sequences (8 Hz, 40 Hz, 1 Hz); first week 130 minutes/day, then small time increases |
| What scientists measured | Pain at rest and during active/passive movement; 10-cm visual analogue scale; x-rays graded with the de Bats scale; arm lift of 60° forward and 40° out while sitting |
| When they measured | Start of study (weeks 2–4 after onset), then at 3 months (pain), and at 6, 12, and 24 months |
| Pain evidence | No-pain rate in the FES group: 70.2% at 3 months, 77.2% at 6 months, 80.7% at 12 and 24 months. Control group: 36.2%, 46.6%, then 55.2% |
| Subluxation evidence | Improved to normal or grade I on x-ray: 73.7% of FES patients at 6 months and 78.9% at 12–24 months, versus 39.7% then 58.6% in controls |
| Motor evidence | Met the lift test: 77.2% of the FES group at 6 months and 82.5% at 12–24 months, versus 46.6% then 60.3% in controls |
| Completers | 57 of 60 finished in the FES group; 58 of 60 finished in the control group |
| Statistics reported | χ² tests; pain and motion differences significant (p < .01 at 12–24 months); x-ray difference significant (p < .05) |
| Authors’ conclusion | The FES program was significantly effective in reducing the severity of subluxation and pain and possibly may have facilitated recovery of shoulder function |
| Original study links | PubMed abstract · Journal page · DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90146-6 |
Related Posts Worth Reading
-
2026 Study coauthored by John Hopskin University School of Medicine , Published in Stroke / American Heart Association journal article
-
2015 Study - Published by BioMed Research International
-
A 2017 systematic review in Systematic Reviews, published by BioMed Central
-
2025 study published in Frontiers in Neurology by Frontiers Media, Switzerland.
-
2018 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2024 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2024 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2025 study published in Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine by the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan.
-
-
2002 study published in Clinical Rehabilitation by SAGE Publications, United States.
-
2014 study published in Journal of Physiotherapy by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2013 Study Published by Stroke Journal, American Heart Association, United States
-
2006 study published in the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2020 Study Published by Frontiers in Neuroscience
-
2022 Study Published by Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research
-
2023 Study Published in the International Journal of Physiotherapy
-
2024 Study Published by The Rehabilitation Journal
-
2022 Study Published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
-
2021 Study Published by Journal of International Medical Research
-
2025 study published by the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine.
-
2025 Study published by Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
-
2014 Study Published in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair.
-
Study Conducted on 93 Stroke People Published on Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
-
Study conducted on 197 Stroke people , published in Stroke Journal, American Heart Association, United States
-
2016 Study Conducted on 815 Stroke Survivors , Published by Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
-
2025 Review Conducted on 933 People, Published by Disability and Rehabilitation, Taylor & Francis
-
2017 Study, Published in Systematic Reviews, BioMed Central
-
University of Glasgow Study Published in the American Heart Association journal Stroke
-
Study Conducted on 120 People After Stroke, Published in American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
-
2023 Study Published in Pain and Therapy (Adis / Springer Nature)
-
2020 Study Published in 𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.
-
2016 Study Published in The Society of Physical Therapy Science, published by IPEC Inc., Japan
Disclaimer
This article is published for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, health advice, diagnosis, or treatment of any kind.
All content on this website, including any studies, research, or information mentioned, is provided for informational purposes only and does not imply or guarantee any specific health outcomes.
We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected in any way to any researchers, universities, research centres, journals, or institutions referenced in any article. No reference to any study, researcher, or publication should be interpreted as an endorsement or recommendation of any products sold or featured on this website.
Our products (and any products featured or linked in this article) are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, prevent, or manage any disease or medical condition. Individual results may vary significantly. No guarantees or warranties are made regarding effectiveness, safety, or specific outcomes.
Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before using any product mentioned on this website or making any changes to your health routine, especially if you have a pre-existing medical condition, are pregnant, breastfeeding, have a pacemaker, or are taking medication.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, ORIEMS FIT, its directors, employees, authors, affiliates, and agents disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, cost, expense, or injury (whether direct, indirect, consequential, special, or incidental) arising from the use of, or reliance upon, any information in this article or from the purchase or use of any products featured or sold on this website.
© [ORIEMS FIT] – All Rights Reserved.
