Measuring upper limb function in children with hemiparesis with 3D inertial sensors.

PURPOSE: Upper limb assessments in children with hemiparesis rely on clinical measurements, which despite standardization are prone to error. Recently, 3D movement analysis using optoelectronic setups has been used to measure upper limb movement, but generalization is hindered by time and cost. Body worn inertial sensors may provide a simple, cost-effective alternative. METHODS: We instrumented a subset of 30 participants in a mirror therapy clinical trial at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up clinical assessments, with wireless inertial sensors positioned on the arms and trunk to monitor motion during reaching tasks. RESULTS: Inertial sensor measurements distinguished paretic and non-paretic limbs with significant differences (P < 0.01) in movement duration, power, range of angular velocity, elevation, and smoothness (normalized jerk index and spectral arc length). Inertial sensor measurements correlated with functional clinical tests (Melbourne Assessment 2); movement duration and complexity (Higuchi fractal dimension) showed moderate to strong negative correlations with clinical measures of amplitude, accuracy, and fluency. CONCLUSION: Inertial sensor measurements reliably identify paresis and correlate with clinical measurements; they can therefore provide a complementary dimension of assessment in clinical practice and during clinical trials aimed at improving upper limb function.

Mirror therapy in children with hemiparesis: a randomized observer-blinded trial.

AIM: To determine the efficacy of mirror therapy in children with hemiparesis. METHOD: The design was an observer-blinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number 48748291). Randomization was computer-generated, 1:1 allocation to mirror therapy or comparison groups. The settings were home-based intervention and tertiary centre assessments. Participants were 90 children with hemiparesis aged 7 to 17 years. Intervention was 15 minutes per day of simultaneous arm training, 5 days a week, for 5 weeks. The mirror therapy group used a mirror; those in the comparison group looked at their paretic limb. Assessments comprised measures of upper limb strength, function (Melbourne Assessment 2), daily performance (ABILHAND-Kids), and sensory function at weeks 0 (T0 ), 5 (T1 ), and 10 (T2 ). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in outcomes and their progression over time between the mirror therapy and comparison groups. Post-hoc intention-to-treat analyses showed significant improvements in both groups for grasp strength (T0 -T1 +12.6%), pinch strength (T0 -T2 +9.1%), upper limb function in terms of accuracy (T0 -T2 +2.7%) and fluency (T0 -T2 +5.0%), as well as daily performance (T0 -T2 +16.6%). Per protocol analyses showed additional improvements in dexterity (T0 -T2 +4.0%). INTERPRETATION: The use of the mirror illusion during therapy had no significant effect on treatment outcomes. However, 5 weeks of daily simultaneous arm training significantly improved paretic upper limb strength, function, and daily use.