Search

AbstractPurposeMethodsResultsConclusionsClinical Trial Registration\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMotor evoked potential (MEP) characteristics are potential biomarkers of whether rehabilitation interventions drive motor recovery after stroke. The test-retest reliability of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) measurements in sub-acute stroke remains unclear. This study aims to determine the test-retest reliability of upper limb MEP measures elicited by non-neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in sub-acute-stroke.In two identical data collection sessions, 1–3 days apart, TMS measures assessed: motor threshold (MT), amplitude, latency (MEP-L), silent period (SP), recruitment curve slope in the biceps brachii (BB), extensor carpi radialis (ECR), and abductor pollicis brevis (APB) muscles of paretic and non-paretic upper limbs. Test-retest reliability was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Acceptable reliability was set at a lower 95% CI of 0.70 or above. The limits of agreement (LOA) and smallest detectable change (SDC) were calculated.30 participants with sub-acute stroke were included (av 36 days post stroke) reliability was variable between poor to good for the different MEP characteristics. The SDC values differed across muscles and MEP characteristics in both paretic and less paretic limbs.The present findings indicate there is limited evidence for acceptable test-retest reliability of non-navigated TMS outcomes when using the appropriate 95% CI for ICC, SDC and LOA values.Current Controlled Trials: ISCRT 19090862, http://www.controlled-trials.comThis study identified that Non-navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) demonstrates low reliability of TMS measures in upper limb with variation between muscles and measures in sub-acute strokeWhen using non-navigated TMS to explore corticospinal pathway excitability the individual target muscle and TMS measure should be taken into considerationNon-navigated TMS may be more useful in exploring group differences rather than individual differences in corticospinal pathway excitabilityNon-navigated TMS could provide a means of measuring recovery in clinical practice and could inform the development of more effective interventions but this needs further development before it can be used as a clinical recovery biomarker [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Better upper limb recovery after stroke could be achieved through tailoring rehabilitation interventions directly at movement deficits. Aim: To identify potential; targets for therapy by synthesizing findings of differences in kinematics and muscle activity between stroke survivors and healthy adults performing reach-to-target tasks. Methods: A systematic review with identification of studies, data extraction, and potential risk of bias was completed independently by two reviewers. Online databases were searched from their inception to November 2017 to find studies of reach-to-target in people-with-stroke and healthy adults. Potential risk-of-bias was assessed using the Down's and Black Tool. Synthesis was undertaken via: (a) meta-analysis of kinematic characteristics utilizing the standardized mean difference (SMD) [95% confidence intervals]; and (b), narrative synthesis of muscle activation. Results: Forty-six studies met the review criteria but 14 had insufficient data for extraction. Consequently, 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Potential risk-of-bias was low for one study, unclear for 30, and high for one. Reach-to-target was investigated with 618 people-with-stroke and 429 healthy adults. The meta-analysis found, in all areas of workspace, that people-with-stroke had: greater movement times (seconds) e.g., SMD 2.57 [0.89, 4.25]; lower peak velocity (millimeters/second) e.g., SMD −1.76 [−2.29, −1.24]; greater trunk displacement (millimeters) e.g. SMD 1.42 [0.90, 1.93]; a more curved reach-path-ratio e.g., SMD 0.77 [0.32, 1.22] and reduced movement smoothness e.g., SMD 0.92 [0.32, 1.52]. In the ipsilateral and contralateral workspace, people-with-stroke exhibited: larger errors in target accuracy e.g., SMD 0.70 [0.39, 1.01]. In contralateral workspace, stroke survivors had: reduced elbow extension and shoulder flexion (degrees) e.g., elbow extension SMD −1.10 [−1.62, −0.58] and reduced shoulder flexion SMD −1.91 [−1.96, −0.42]. Narrative synthesis of muscle activation found that people-with-stroke, compared with healthy adults, exhibited: delayed muscle activation; reduced coherence between muscle pairs; and use of a greater percentage of muscle power. Conclusions: This first-ever meta-analysis of the kinematic differences between people with stroke and healthy adults performing reach-to-target found statistically significant differences for 21 of the 26 comparisons. The differences identified and values provided are potential foci for tailored rehabilitation interventions to improve upper limb recovery after stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Variation in physiological deficits underlying upper limb paresis after stroke could influence how people recover and to which physical therapy they best respond. Objectives: To determine whether functional strength training (FST) improves upper limb recovery more than movement performance therapy (MPT). To identify: (a) neural correlates of response and (b) whether pre-intervention neural characteristics predict response. Design: Explanatory investigations within a randomised, controlled, observer-blind, and multicentre trial. Randomisation was computer-generated and concealed by an independent facility until baseline measures were completed. Primary time point was outcome, after the 6-week intervention phase. Follow-up was at 6 months after stroke. Participants: With some voluntary muscle contraction in the paretic upper limb, not full dexterity, when recruited up to 60 days after an anterior cerebral circulation territory stroke. Interventions: Conventional physical therapy (CPT) plus either MPT or FST for up to 90 min-a-day, 5 days-a-week for 6 weeks. FST was "hands-off" progressive resistive exercise cemented into functional task training. MPT was "hands-on" sensory/facilitation techniques for smooth and accurate movement. Outcomes: The primary efficacy measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Neural measures: fractional anisotropy (FA) corpus callosum midline; asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA; and resting motor threshold (RMT) of motor-evoked potentials. Analysis: Covariance models tested ARAT change from baseline. At outcome: correlation coefficients assessed relationship between change in ARAT and neural measures; an interaction term assessed whether baseline neural characteristics predicted response. Results: 288 Participants had: mean age of 72.2 (SD 12.5) years and mean ARAT 25.5 (18.2). For 240 participants with ARAT at baseline and outcome the mean change was 9.70 (11.72) for FST + CPT and 7.90 (9.18) for MPT + CPT, which did not differ statistically (p = 0.298). Correlations between ARAT change scores and baseline neural values were between 0.199, p = 0.320 for MPT + CPT RMT (n = 27) and -0.147, p = 0.385 for asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA (n = 37). Interaction effects between neural values and ARAT change between baseline and outcome were not statistically significant. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in upper limb improvement between FST and MPT. Baseline neural measures did not correlate with upper limb recovery or predict therapy response. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCT 19090862, http://www.controlled- trials.com [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Functional strength training in addition to conventional physical therapy could enhance upper limb recovery early after stroke more than movement performance therapy plus conventional physical therapy. Aims To determine (a) the relative clinical efficacy of conventional physical therapy combined with functional strength training and conventional physical therapy combined with movement performance therapy for upper limb recovery; (b) the neural correlates of response to conventional physical therapy combined with functional strength training and conventional physical therapy combined with movement performance therapy; (c) whether any one or combination of baseline measures predict motor improvement in response to conventional physical therapy combined with functional strength training or conventional physical therapy combined with movement performance therapy. Design Randomized, controlled, observer-blind trial. Study The sample will consist of 288 participants with upper limb paresis resulting from a stroke that occurred within the previous 60 days. All will be allocated to conventional physical therapy combined with functional strength training or conventional physical therapy combined with movement performance therapy. Functional strength training and movement performance therapy will be undertaken for up to 1·5 h/day, five-days/week for six-weeks. Outcomes and Analysis Measurements will be undertaken before randomization, six-weeks thereafter, and six-months after stroke. Primary efficacy outcome will be the Action Research Arm Test. Explanatory measurements will include voxel-wise estimates of brain activity during hand movement, brain white matter integrity (fractional anisotropy), and brain-muscle connectivity (e.g. latency of motor evoked potentials). The primary clinical efficacy analysis will compare treatment groups using a multilevel normal linear model adjusting for stratification variables and for which therapist administered the treatment. Effect of conventional physical therapy combined with functional strength training versus conventional physical therapy combined with movement performance therapy will be summarized using the adjusted mean difference and 95% confidence interval. To identify the neural correlates of improvement in both groups, we will investigate associations between change from baseline in clinical outcomes and each explanatory measure. To identify baseline measurements that independently predict motor improvement, we will develop a multiple regression model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Physical therapy doses may need to be higher than provided in current clinical practice, especially for patients with severe paresis. The authors aimed to find the most effective and feasible dose of Mobilisation and Tactile Stimulation (MTS), which includes joint and soft-tissue mobilization and passive or active-assisted movement to enhance voluntary muscle contraction. Methods. This 2-center, randomized, controlled, observer-blinded feasibility trial compared conventional rehabilitation but no extra therapy (group 1) with conventional therapy plus 1 of 3 daily doses of MTS, up to 30 (group 2), 60 (group 3), or 120 (group 4) minutes for 14 days. The 76 participants had substantial paresis (Motricity Index [MI] < 61) a mean of 30 days (standard deviation [SD] = 20 days) after anterior circulation stroke. MTS was delivered using a standardized schedule of techniques (eg, sensory input, active-assisted movement). The primary outcome was the Motricity Index (MI) and secondary outcome was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) tested on day 16. Adverse events were monitored daily. Results. No difference was found in the change in control group MI compared with each of the 3 intervention groups (P = .593) or in the ARAT. Mean actual daily treatment time for all MTS groups was less than expected. The attrition rate was 1.3%. No adverse events related to overuse occurred. Conclusion. The authors were not able to deliver a maximum dose of 120 minutes of daily therapy each day. The mean daily dose of MTS feasible for subsequent evaluation is between 37 and 66 minutes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Bilateral training (BT) of the upper limb (UL) might enhance recovery of arm function after stroke. To better understand the therapeutic potential of BT, this study aimed to determine the correlation between arm motor behavior and brain structure/function as a result of bilateral arm training poststroke. Methods: A systematic review of quantitative studies of BT evaluating both UL motor behavior and neuroplasticity was conducted. Eleven electronic databases were searched. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed methodological quality, using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool. Results: Eight studies comprising 164 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies rated "strong" on the EPHPP tool. Considerable heterogeneity of participants, BT modes, comparator interventions and measures contraindicated pooled outcome analysis. Modes of BT included: in-phase and anti-phase; functional movements involving objects; and movements only. Movements were mechanically coupled, free, auditorycued, or self-paced. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UL section) was used in six of eight studies, however, different subsections were used by different studies. Neural correlates were measured using fMRI and TMS in three and five studies, respectively, using a wide variety of variables. Associations between changes in UL function and neural plasticity were inconsistent and only two studies reported a statistical correlation following BT. Conclusions: No clear pattern of association between UL motor and neural response to BT was apparent from this review, indicating that the neural correlates of motor behavior response to BT after stroke remain unknown. To understand the full therapeutic potential of BT and its different modes, further investigation is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]