Neurorehabilitation of the upper extremity - immersive virtual reality vs. electromechanically assisted training. A comparative study.

Background: Severe paresis of the contralesional upper extremity is one of the most common and debilitating post-stroke impairments. The need for cost-effective high-intensity training is driving the development of new technologies, which can complement and extent conventional therapies. Apart from established methods using electromechanical devices, immersive virtual reality (iVR) systems hold promise to provide cost-efficient high-intensity arm training. Objective: We investigated whether iVR-based arm training yields at least equivalent effects on upper extremity function as compared to an electromechanically assisted training in stroke patients with severe arm paresis. Methods: 52 stroke patients with severe arm paresis received a total of ten daily group therapy sessions over a period of three weeks, which consisted of 20 min of conventional therapy and 20 min of either electromechanically assisted (ARMEOSpring®) or iVR-based (CUREO®) arm training. Changes in upper extremity function was assessed using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and user acceptance was measured with the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Results: iVR-based training was not inferior to electromechanically assisted training. We found that 84% of patients treated with iVR and 50% of patients treated with electromechanically assisted arm training showed a clinically relevant improvement of upper extremity function. This difference could neither be attributed to differences between the groups regarding age, gender, duration after stroke, affected body side or ARAT scores at baseline, nor to differences in the total amount of therapy provided. Conclusion: The present study results show that iVR-based arm training seems to be a promising addition to conventional therapy. Potential mechanisms by which iVR unfolds its effects are discussed.

Factors Facilitating and Hindering the Use of Newly Acquired Positioning Skills in Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Survey.

Background: After learning new skills, healthcare professionals do not always apply them in practice, despite being motivated. This may be referred to as an intention-behavior gap. One example is the positioning of immobilized and disabled patients in hospitals, nursing homes, or neurorehabilitation clinics. Positioning is crucial to prevent complications such as pressure sores, pneumonia, and deep vein thrombosis. However, it is often not carried out optimally even when professionals have completed education programs. The LiN-method is a positioning procedure involving a special focus on aligning and stabilizing body parts, which has been shown to have advantages over conventional positioning. We assess which factors may facilitate or hinder the use of LiN in clinical practice after participants complete training. Methods: A longitudinal survey with 101 LiN-course participants was conducted in Germany. Each participant completed a questionnaire directly after the course and 12 weeks later, including a report of the frequency of use in practice. They also completed a questionnaire which surveyed 23 aspects that might facilitate or hinder use of the new skills, covering the workplace, socio-collegial factors, motivation, self-confidence, and mindset. Results: Most assessed aspects were associated with LiN-use, with the highest correlations found for confidence with the method, perceived ease of application, sufficient time, assessing one's skills as sufficient, remembering the relevant steps, and a work environment open to advanced therapeutic concepts. To reduce data complexity, the questionnaire was subjected to a factor analysis, revealing six factors. A regression analysis showed that four factors predicted use 12 weeks after course completion, in the following order of importance: (1) subjective aspects/confidence, (2) access to materials, (3) work context, and (4) competent support in the workplace. Conclusion: Numerous aspects are associated with the use of recently acquired clinical or nursing skills, such as LiN. Many of these can be improved by appropriately setting up the workplace. The aspects most associated with use, however, are confidence with the method and self-perceived competence of healthcare professionals. While causality still needs to be demonstrated, this suggests that education programs should support participants in developing confidence and foster a mindset of continuous learning.

Frequency and nature of pain in patients undergoing neurorehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective study investigated the extent to which patients undergoing neurorehabilitation reported pain, how this pain developed during inpatient stay and whether patients were treated accordingly (using pain medication). METHODS: The extent of pain, performance in daily activities, with a focus on possible impairment from pain, and pain medication were assessed at the beginning and the end of neurorehabilitation treatment. Overall 584 patients, with various neurological diagnoses, such as stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, polyneuropathy, etc. were classified into four groups based on whether they reported having "no pain," "mild pain," "moderate pain," or "severe pain." All patients received conventional neurorehabilitation therapy in the Mauritius Hospital, Germany. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients had clinically relevant pain at the beginning of their inpatient stay, at a group level this did not change significantly during the treatment period. At the end of inpatient stay, a slight increase was noted in patients reporting pain. Overall 164 patients suffered from moderate or severe pain, operationalized of pain scores >3 on the visual analog scale. A total of 145 patients who had pain at the end of inpatient stay, did not receive pain medication. There was a weak negative association between pain at baseline and activities of daily living at the end of the treatment period, such that, patients with higher pain levels tended to showed lower Barthel Index scores at the end. CONCLUSION: In our study, about one-third of patients suffered from clinically relevant pain during neurorehabilitation treatment and most of them did not receive any pain medication.

Support pressure distribution for positioning in neutral versus conventional positioning in the prevention of decubitus ulcers: a pilot study in healthy participants.

BACKGROUND: Decubitus ulcers are associated with a burden for the patients and cause enormous costs. One of the reasons for the development of decubitus is prolonged exposure to pressure. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the pressure distribution of healthy individuals either positioned in Positioning in Neutral (LiN) or conventional positioning (CON). METHODS: Four healthy participants were positioned in a supine, 30° degree side lying and 90° side lying position both in LiN and CON. A thousand pressure sensors in a mattress enabled a visual presentation of low, medium and high pressure on a screen. This presentation was processed by Photoshop in order to count the pixels representing the total support pressure surface and the pressure intensity. RESULTS: LiN showed, on average, a smaller surface with measurable pressure compared to CON (46,293 versus 64,090 pixels). The areas of medium pressure were comparable. Mean areas of low and high pressure were both smaller in LiN as compared to CON (low: 8315 versus 22,790 pixels; high: 3744 versus 7277 pixels). CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study indicate that LiN is suitable for pressure sore prophylaxis because LiN showed less support surface and less maximum pressure as compared to CON.

A comparison between the Static Balance Test and the Berg Balance Scale: validity, reliability, and comparative resource use.

OBJECTIVE: Within a sample of acute post-stroke patients, to compare the score on the Berg Balance Scale and the Static Balance Test for validity, inter-rater reliability, and the expenditure of time. DESIGN: Prospective, intra-individual, cross-sectional evaluation study. SETTING: Acute stroke unit of a university hospital in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53 patients with acute stroke who did not have other pathology affecting their balance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: For intra-individual comparisons of the Berg Balance Scale and the Static Balance Test, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. For inter-rater reliability, Bland Altman plots were drawn and the corresponding mean difference and limits of agreement were calculated. RESULTS: The Static Balance Test took three to five minutes; the Berg Balance Scale 20-30 minutes. There was a high correlation between the scores on the Berg Balance Scale and the Static Balance Test (r = 0.91). For the Berg Balance Scale, the mean difference between the two raters was 0.13 and the limits of agreement were small (-0.25; 0.51). For the Static Balance Test, the mean difference between the two raters was -0.02 and also the limits of agreement (-0.06; 0.02) were even smaller than for the Berg Balance Scale. Both scales showed excellent inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: The Static Balance Test was compared with the Berg Balance Scale and turned out to be equally valid, more reliable, and takes much less time. For the moment, the scale can be recommended for the use in acute stroke care, especially for the daily routine therapy.

Effects of therapeutic positioning on vital parameters in patients with central neurological disorders: a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of positioning on heart rate, breathing frequency and blood pressure in postacute, severely disabled patients with central neurological disorders. BACKGROUND: Positioning patients is part of the regular nursing routine in the care for severely disabled patients. Positioning can be done in a conventional way or in Lagerung in Neutralstellung (Engl.: positioning in neutral), which has recently been shown to have better effects on the passive range of motion and comfort than conventional positioning. While it is thought that positioning influences vital parameters, so far no study has investigated this for a clinically relevant observation period, and no study has compared different positioning concepts in this respect. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, controlled, single-blind clinical trial. METHODS: Two hundred and eighteen patients were randomly assigned to positioning in neutral or conventional positioning. For two hours, they were lying in one of five positions (supine, 30° and 90° side lying on the right or left side) according to the respective positioning concept. Heart rate, breathing frequency and blood pressure were measured before and after positioning in a supine lying position (i.e. not positioned according to any concept). It was investigated if the interventions influence vital parameters and whether there are differences between positioning in neutral and conventional positioning, or between the different positions. RESULTS: In neither of the groups did heart rate, breathing frequency and blood pressure change significantly after the intervention compared to before (p ≤ 0·01). CONCLUSION: Positioning does not influence heart rate, breathing frequency and blood pressure when patients are lying for a clinically feasible length of two hours. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study shows that nurses can apply both positioning concepts according to their patients' preferences or to address problems like pressure sore prevention. There is no risk of influencing basic vital parameters.

Conventional versus neutral positioning in central neurological disease: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe immobility due to lesions of the brain necessitates therapeutic positioning over the long term. There is little scientific evidence concerning the efficacy of different positioning methods. This clinical trial compares the effects of conventional positioning (CON) with those of positioning in neutral (LiN). METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, investigator-blinded, randomized, controlled trial was performed on a total of 218 non-ambulatory patients (underlying disease: stroke, 141 patients; hypoxic brain damage, 28; traumatic brain injury, 20; other, 29). The subjects were randomly assigned to either LiN (105 patients) or CON (113 patients) and stratified within each of these two positioning concepts to five different positions. They remained in the assigned positions for two hours. The primary endpoint was change in the passive range of motion (PROM) of the hip joints. Secondary endpoints were change in the PROM of the shoulder joints and patient comfort. RESULTS: Patients in the LiN group had a significantly better PROM of the hips after positioning than those in the CON group (difference, 12.84°; p<0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.72°-19.96°). The same was true for PROM of shoulder flexion (11.85°; p<0.001; 95% CI, 4.50°-19.19°) and external rotation (7.08°; p<0.001; 95% CI: 2.70°-11.47°). 81% of patients in the LiN group reported their comfort level as good, compared to only 38% in the CON group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Positioning severely immobilized patients in LiN for two hours improved passive hip and shoulder mobility and patient comfort compared to conventional positioning. Further studies are needed to determine whether prolonged LiN positioning might improve rehabilitation and quality of life, prevent pressure sores, or ease nursing care.

Blepharospasm: long-term treatment with either Botox®, Xeomin® or Dysport®.

Botulinum toxin (BT) therapy is the treatment of choice for blepharospasm (BPS). Currently available BT type A drugs include Botox(®), Dysport(®) and Xeomin(®). Until now, there are few long-term studies on BT therapy for BPS. This is the first long-term study comparing all three major BT drugs. We collected treatment, efficacy and adverse effect data on BPS patients treated with either Botox(®), Dysport(®) or Xeomin(®) for at least eight consecutive treatments. Two hundred and eighty-eight patients (208 females, 80 males, age 62 ± 12 years) were included in this study. The treatment time was 11.2 ± 4.1 years covering 10,701 injection series. Doses were 47 ± 10 MU for Botox(®), 120 ± 35 MU for Dysport(®) and 62 ± 11 MU for Xeomin(®) (Botox(®) dose vs Xeomin(®) dose: p < 0.001, unpaired t test). 85 % of all patients had stable doses. The onset of the therapeutic effect was after 6.1 ± 3.3 days and its duration lasted 10.2 ± 3.5 weeks. The Global Clinical Improvement (GCI, 0 = no, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = marked improvement in severity and function) as estimated by the patient was 2.5 ± 0.6. It was stable in 90% of the patients. Adverse effect frequency was 3.0% (ptosis 2.3%, dry eye 0.5%, diplopia 0.2%). None of these findings was significantly different between Botox(®), Dysport(®) and Xeomin(®). Our study, one of the largest studies on BT therapy of BPS and the study with the longest follow-up, confirms that BT therapy produces robust clinical improvement which is stable throughout the treatment time. Therapeutic effects start after 6.1 days and last for about 10 weeks before they start to vanish. With this, they are approximately 2 weeks shorter than the recommended inter-injection interval. Adverse effects were rare, mild and always transient. BT therapy is a safe and effective treatment for BSP. Shorter inter-injection intervals may improve therapeutic results.