Efficacy and Dose of Rehabilitation Approaches for Severe Upper Limb Impairments and Disability During Early Acute and Subacute Stroke: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the evidence of the efficacy of rehabilitation approaches for improving severe upper limb impairments and disability during acute and early subacute stroke, taking into consideration the dosage of therapy. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched by 2 independent researchers. Studies were selected if they involved active rehabilitation interventions that were conducted in the acute stage (<7 days after stroke) or the early subacute stage (>7 days-3 months after stroke), with the aim of improving severe upper limb motor impairments and disability. Data were extracted on the basis of the type and effect of rehabilitation interventions and on the dosage (duration, frequency, session length, episode difficulty, and intensity). Study quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (1271 participants) with fair to good methodological quality were included. Only 3 studies were performed in the acute stage. Regardless of the type of intervention, upper limb rehabilitation was found to be beneficial for severe upper limb impairments and disability. Robotic therapy and functional electrical stimulation were identified as the most popular upper limb interventions; however, only a limited number of studies showed their superiority over a dose-matched control intervention for severe upper limb impairments in the subacute stage. A longer rehabilitation session length (<60 minutes) did not seem to have a larger impact on the magnitude of improved upper limb impairments. CONCLUSION: Different rehabilitation approaches seem to improve severe upper limb impairments and disability in the subacute stage after stroke; however, they are not distinctly superior to standard care or other interventions provided at the same dosage. IMPACT: Robotic therapy and functional electrical stimulation add variety to rehabilitation programs, but their benefit has not been shown to exceed that of standard care. Further research is necessary to identify the impact of dosage parameters (eg, intensity) on severe upper limb motor impairments and function, especially in the acute stage.

Exercise dosage to facilitate the recovery of balance, walking, and quality of life after stroke.

Background: Although aerobic training (AT) and resistance training (RT) are recommended after stroke, the optimal dosage of these interventions and their effectiveness on balance, walking capacity, and quality of life (QoL) remain conflicting. Objectives: Our study aimed to quantify the effects of different modes, dosages and settings of exercise therapy on balance, walking capacity, and QoL in stroke survivors. Method: PubMed, CINHAL, and Hinari databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of AT and RT on balance, walking, and QoL in stroke survivors. The treatment effect was computed by the standard mean differences (SMDs). Results: Twenty-eight trials (n = 1571 participants) were included. Aerobic training and RT interventions were ineffective on balance. Aerobic training interventions were the most effective in improving walking capacity (SMD = 0.37 [0.02, 0.71], p = 0.04). For walking, capacity, a higher dosage (duration ≥ 120 min/week; intensity ≥ 60% heart rate reserve) of AT interventions demonstrated a significantly greater effect (SMD = 0.58 [0.12, 1.04], p = 0.01). Combined AT and RT improved QoL (SMD = 0.56 [0.12, 0.98], p = 0.01). Hospital located rehabilitation setting was effective for improving walking capacity (SMD = 0.57 [0.06, 1.09], p = 0.03) compared with home and/or community and laboratory settings. Conclusion: Our findings showed that neither AT nor RT have a significant effect on balance. However, AT executed in hospital-located settings with a higher dose is a more effective strategy to facilitate walking capacity in chronic stroke. In contrast, combined AT and RT is beneficial for improving QoL. Clinical implications: A high dosage of aerobic exercise, duration ≥ 120 min/week; intensity ≥ 60% heart rate reserve is beneficial for improving walking capacity.

A nation-wide survey exploring the views of current and future use of functional electrical stimulation in spinal cord injury.

PURPOSE: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) can be effective in assisting physical and psychosocial difficulties experienced by people with spinal cord injury. Perceived benefits and barriers of the current and future use of FES within the wider spinal cord injury community is currently unknown. The main objective of this research was to explore the spinal cord injury community's views of the use of FES to decrease disability in rehabilitation programmes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online and paper questionnaire was distributed to people with spinal cord injury, health care professionals and researchers working in spinal cord injury settings in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: A total of 299 participants completed the survey (152 people with spinal cord injury, 141 health care professionals and 6 researchers). Common views between groups identified were: (1) FES can be beneficial in improving physical and psychosocial aspects and that (2) adequate support and training for FES application was provided to users. Barriers to FES use included a lack of staff time and training, financial cost and availability of the equipment. Sixty three percent of non-users felt they would use FES in the future if they had the opportunity. CONCLUSIONS: Users' views were important in identifying that FES application can be beneficial for people with spinal cord injury but also has some resourceful barriers. In order to increase use, future research should focus on reducing the cost of FES clinical service and also address implementation of awareness and training programmes within spinal units and community rehabilitation settings.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONUsers of functional electrical stimulation think that it is beneficial for improving physical and psychosocial limitations after spinal cord injuryBarriers to FES use include a lack of staff time and training, financial cost and availability of the equipment have been suggested by people with spinal cord injury and health care professionalsEducation and implementation programs for health care professionals and people with spinal cord injury are now necessary to increase the awareness about functional electrical stimulation applicationReduction of FES cost could also increase its uptake in spinal cord injury clinical services.

Predictors of upper limb spasticity after stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive markers for the occurrence of upper limb spasticity in the first 12 months after stroke. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was undertaken of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDRO to 31st December 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Non-experimental or experimental studies that included a control group with spasticity who did not receive an experimental intervention which investigated at least one variable (explanatory variable) measured at baseline against the development (or not) of spasticity at a future time point within 12 months post stroke were selected independently by two reviewers. Eleven papers met the selection criteria. STUDY APPRAISAL: Data were extracted into tabular format using predefined data fields by two reviewers. Study quality was evaluated using the modified Downs and Black tool. Data were analysed using a meta-analysis or narrative review. RESULTS: Ten studies, including 856 participants were analysed. The predictive markers of upper limb spasticity at one month post stroke were: motor 11.25 (odds ratio, OR); [95% CI:2.48, 51.04] and sensory impairments 4.91 (OR); [1.24, 19.46]; haemorrhagic stroke 3.70 (OR); [1.05, 12.98] and age 0.01 (OR) [0.00, 69.89]. Only motor impairment was found as a significant predictor at six months post stroke 30.68 (OR); [1.60, 587.06]. LIMITATIONS: Low number of studies exploring biomechanical and neurophysiological in addition to behavioural predictors of spasticity were included. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Using the results, the identified predictive markers have potential to better inform clinical decision-making and to plan specific rehabilitation interventions by physiotherapists for stroke survivors with upper limb spasticity. Systematic Review Registration Number PROSPERO (ID: CRD42016027642).

Mismatch between observed and perceived upper limb function: an eye-catching phenomenon after stroke.

PURPOSE: To investigate the relation between observed and perceived upper limb motor function in patients with chronic stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We investigated 32 patients at six months after stroke with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (observed function) and hand subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale (perceived function). Spearman correlation was calculated to relate observed and perceived function. Through cut-off scores, we divided our sample in low (Fugl-Meyer Assessment <31/66) and good observed function, and low (hand subscale of Stroke Impact Scale <61/100) and good perceived function. Scatterplot and hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted to detect distinct groups. RESULTS: A strong positive relation was found between observed and perceived function (r = 0.84). Three groups could be identified; a "low match group" of patients with low observed and low perceived function (n = 11, 34%), a "good match group" containing patients with good observed and good perceived function (n = 15, 47%), and a "mismatch group" comprising patients with good observed but low perceived function (n = 6, 19%). CONCLUSIONS: In our chronic sample, one in five patients showed good upper limb observed but low perceived function. Measuring both observed and perceived arm and hand function seems warranted together with considering a differential therapy approach for the distinct groups. Implications for rehabilitation A considerable group of patients in the chronic phase post-stroke have good motor function in their affected upper limb, but nevertheless perceive a restricted ability. In order to identify a mismatch in people with chronic stroke, both observed and perceived upper limb motor function should be assessed. Besides common measurement tools for observed function like the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, perceived function can be evaluated by means of the hand function section of the Stroke Impact Scale. For patients with good observed but low perceived function, an additional rehabilitation strategy should be considered, potentially including awareness of ability and a self-efficacy approach.

Does sensorimotor upper limb therapy post stroke alter behavior and brain connectivity differently compared to motor therapy? Protocol of a phase II randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of somatosensory feedback in motor performance has been warranted in the literature. Although sensorimotor deficits are common after stroke, current rehabilitation approaches primarily focus on restoring upper limb motor ability. Evidence for integrative sensorimotor rehabilitation approaches is scarce, as is knowledge about neural correlates of somatosensory impairments after stroke and the effect of rehabilitation on brain connectivity level. Therefore, we aim to investigate changes in sensorimotor function and brain connectivity following a sensorimotor therapy program compared to an attention-matched motor therapy program for the upper limb after stroke. METHODS: An assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Sixty inpatient rehabilitation patients up to eight weeks after stroke will be included. Patients will be randomized to either an experimental group receiving sensorimotor therapy or a control group receiving attention-matched motor therapy for the upper limb, with both groups receiving conventional therapy. Thus, all patients will receive extra therapy, a total of 16 1-h sessions over four weeks. Patients will be assessed at baseline, after four weeks of training, and after four weeks of follow-up. Primary outcome measure is the Action Research Arm Test. Secondary outcome measures will consist of somatosensory, motor and cognitive assessments, and a standardized resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging protocol. DISCUSSION: The integration of sensory and motor rehabilitation into one therapy model might provide the added value of this therapy to improve sensorimotor performance post stroke. Insight in the behavioral and brain connectivity changes post therapy will lead to a better understanding of working mechanisms of therapy and will provide new knowledge for patient-tailored therapy approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03236376 . Registered on 8 August 2017.

Measurement of motor-evoked potential resting threshold and amplitude of proximal and distal arm muscles in healthy adults. A reliability study.

PURPOSE: Reliability of motor-evoked potential threshold and amplitude measurement of upper limb muscles is important when detecting changes in cortical excitability. The objective of this study was to investigate intra-rater, test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of resting motor threshold and amplitude of a proximal and distal upper limb muscles, anterior deltoid and distal extensor digitorum communis in healthy adults. METHOD: To measure motor-evoked potential responses, transcranial magnetic stimulation was interfaced with electromyography and neuronavigation equipment. Two measurements were conducted on day 1 and a third measurement three days later. Reliability was analysed using intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Twenty participants completed the study. Excellent intra-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91 (extensor digitorum), 0.94 (anterior deltoid)) and good to excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.69 (anterior deltoid), 0.84 (extensor digitorum)) was found for resting motor threshold. Minimal detectable change for resting motor threshold was found at 10.95% (extensor digitorum) and 16.35% (anterior deltoid) between first and third measurements. Motor-evoked potential amplitude of extensor digitorum communis had fair to good intra-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.50) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that resting motor threshold is a reliable neurophysiological measure even for proximal shoulder muscles. Future research should further explore the reliability of motor-evoked potential amplitude before integration into neurological rehabilitation.

Translation of evidence-based Assistive Technologies into stroke rehabilitation: users' perceptions of the barriers and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Assistive Technologies (ATs), defined as "electrical or mechanical devices designed to help people recover movement", demonstrate clinical benefits in upper limb stroke rehabilitation; however translation into clinical practice is poor. Uptake is dependent on a complex relationship between all stakeholders. Our aim was to understand patients', carers' (P&Cs) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experience and views of upper limb rehabilitation and ATs, to identify barriers and opportunities critical to the effective translation of ATs into clinical practice. This work was conducted in the UK, which has a state funded healthcare system, but the findings have relevance to all healthcare systems. METHODS: Two structurally comparable questionnaires, one for P&Cs and one for HCPs, were designed, piloted and completed anonymously. Wide distribution of the questionnaires provided data from HCPs with experience of stroke rehabilitation and P&Cs who had experience of stroke. Questionnaires were designed based on themes identified from four focus groups held with HCPs and P&Cs and piloted with a sample of HCPs (N = 24) and P&Cs (N = 8). Eight of whom (four HCPs and four P&Cs) had been involved in the development. RESULTS: 292 HCPs and 123 P&Cs questionnaires were analysed. 120 (41%) of HCP and 79 (64%) of P&C respondents had never used ATs. Most views were common to both groups, citing lack of information and access to ATs as the main reasons for not using them. Both HCPs (N = 53 [34%]) and P&C (N = 21 [47%]) cited Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) as the most frequently used AT. Research evidence was rated by HCPs as the most important factor in the design of an ideal technology, yet ATs they used or prescribed were not supported by research evidence. P&Cs rated ease of set-up and comfort more highly. CONCLUSION: Key barriers to translation of ATs into clinical practice are lack of knowledge, education, awareness and access. Perceptions about arm rehabilitation post-stroke are similar between HCPs and P&Cs. Based on our findings, improvements in AT design, pragmatic clinical evaluation, better knowledge and awareness and improvement in provision of services will contribute to better and cost-effective upper limb stroke rehabilitation.

Assistive technologies after stroke: self-management or fending for yourself? A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Assistive Technologies, defined as "electrical or mechanical devices designed to help people recover movement" have demonstrated clinical benefits in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. Stroke services are becoming community-based and more reliant on self-management approaches. Assistive technologies could become important tools within self-management, however, in practice, few people currently use assistive technologies. This study investigated patients', family caregivers and health professionals' experiences and perceptions of stroke upper-limb rehabilitation and assistive technology use and identified the barriers and facilitators to their use in supporting stroke self-management. METHODS: A three-day exhibition of assistive technologies was attended by 204 patients, family caregivers/friends and health professionals. Four focus groups were conducted with people purposively sampled from exhibition attendees. They included i) people with stroke who had used assistive technologies (n = 5), ii) people with stroke who had not used assistive technologies (n = 6), iii) family caregivers (n = 5) and iv) health professionals (n = 6). The audio-taped focus groups were facilitated by a moderator and observer. All participants were asked to discuss experiences, strengths, weaknesses, barriers and facilitators to using assistive technologies. Following transcription, data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: All respondents thought assistive technologies had the potential to support self-management but that this opportunity was currently unrealised. All respondents considered assistive technologies could provide a home-based solution to the need for high intensity upper-limb rehabilitation. All stakeholders also reported significant barriers to assistive technology use, related to i) device design ii) access to assistive technology information and iii) access to assistive technology provision. The lack of and need for a coordinated system for assistive technology provision was apparent. A circular limitation of lack of evidence in clinical settings, lack of funded provision, lack of health professional knowledge about assistive technologies and confidence in prescribing them leading to lack of assistive technology service provision meant that often patients either received no assistive technologies or they and/or their family caregivers liaised directly with manufacturers without any independent expert advice. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable systemic barriers to realising the potential of assistive technologies in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation were reported. Attention needs to be paid to increasing evidence of assistive technology effectiveness and develop clinical service provision. Device manufacturers, researchers, health professionals, service funders and people with stroke and family caregivers need to work creatively and collaboratively to develop new funding models, improve device design and increase knowledge and training in assistive technology use.