Distinguishing Distinct Neural Systems for Proximal vs Distal Upper Extremity Motor Control After Acute Stroke.
Journal
Neurology
ISSN: 1526-632X
Titre abrégé: Neurology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 07 2023
25 07 2023
Historique:
received:
27
11
2022
accepted:
31
03
2023
pmc-release:
25
07
2024
medline:
26
7
2023
pubmed:
3
6
2023
entrez:
2
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The classic and singular pattern of distal greater than proximal upper extremity motor deficits after acute stroke does not account for the distinct structural and functional organization of circuits for proximal and distal motor control in the healthy CNS. We hypothesized that separate proximal and distal upper extremity clinical syndromes after acute stroke could be distinguished and that patterns of neuroanatomical injury leading to these 2 syndromes would reflect their distinct organization in the intact CNS. Proximal and distal components of motor impairment (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score) and strength (Shoulder Abduction Finger Extension score) were assessed in consecutively recruited patients within 7 days of acute stroke. Partial correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between proximal and distal motor scores. Functional outcomes including the Box and Blocks Test (BBT), Barthel Index (BI), and modified Rankin scale (mRS) were examined in relation to proximal vs distal motor patterns of deficit. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping was used to identify regions of injury associated with proximal vs distal upper extremity motor deficits. A total of 141 consecutive patients (49% female) were assessed 4.0 ± 1.6 (mean ± SD) days after stroke onset. Separate proximal and distal upper extremity motor components were distinguishable after acute stroke ( These results highlight that proximal and distal upper extremity motor systems can be selectively injured by acute stroke, with dissociable deficits and functional consequences. Our findings emphasize how disruption of distinct motor systems can contribute to separable components of poststroke upper extremity hemiparesis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The classic and singular pattern of distal greater than proximal upper extremity motor deficits after acute stroke does not account for the distinct structural and functional organization of circuits for proximal and distal motor control in the healthy CNS. We hypothesized that separate proximal and distal upper extremity clinical syndromes after acute stroke could be distinguished and that patterns of neuroanatomical injury leading to these 2 syndromes would reflect their distinct organization in the intact CNS.
METHODS
Proximal and distal components of motor impairment (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score) and strength (Shoulder Abduction Finger Extension score) were assessed in consecutively recruited patients within 7 days of acute stroke. Partial correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between proximal and distal motor scores. Functional outcomes including the Box and Blocks Test (BBT), Barthel Index (BI), and modified Rankin scale (mRS) were examined in relation to proximal vs distal motor patterns of deficit. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping was used to identify regions of injury associated with proximal vs distal upper extremity motor deficits.
RESULTS
A total of 141 consecutive patients (49% female) were assessed 4.0 ± 1.6 (mean ± SD) days after stroke onset. Separate proximal and distal upper extremity motor components were distinguishable after acute stroke (
DISCUSSION
These results highlight that proximal and distal upper extremity motor systems can be selectively injured by acute stroke, with dissociable deficits and functional consequences. Our findings emphasize how disruption of distinct motor systems can contribute to separable components of poststroke upper extremity hemiparesis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37268437
pii: WNL.0000000000207417
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207417
pmc: PMC10435065
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e347-e357Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD093694
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.
Références
J Neurophysiol. 1999 Jan;81(1):383-7
pubmed: 9914297
J Neurosci. 1991 Mar;11(3):667-89
pubmed: 1705965
Neuroimage. 2001 May;13(5):825-35
pubmed: 11304079
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020 Oct;34(10):904-914
pubmed: 32830602
Brain. 1997 Jan;120 ( Pt 1):141-57
pubmed: 9055804
Science. 1996 Jun 21;272(5269):1791-4
pubmed: 8650578
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Oct;35(10):871-879
pubmed: 34319189
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):3569-3577
pubmed: 31648631
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1965 Aug;46:567-72
pubmed: 14340366
J Neurosci. 2018 Feb 7;38(6):1430-1442
pubmed: 29305534
Cereb Cortex. 2018 May 1;28(5):1685-1699
pubmed: 28334314
Brain. 2008 Feb;131(Pt 2):425-37
pubmed: 18156154
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Oct;27(8):732-41
pubmed: 23774125
Neuroimage. 2009 Jan 1;44(1):83-98
pubmed: 18501637
Nat Neurosci. 2003 May;6(5):448-50
pubmed: 12704393
Neuron. 2002 May 30;34(5):841-51
pubmed: 12062029
Elife. 2020 Nov 17;9:
pubmed: 33200745
Stroke. 2003 May;34(5):e23-8
pubmed: 12677024
J Phys Ther Sci. 2016 Sep;28(9):2565-2567
pubmed: 27799695
Neuroimage. 2002 Jan;15(1):273-89
pubmed: 11771995
Neuroimage. 2012 Jul 16;61(4):957-65
pubmed: 22440645
Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3410-20
pubmed: 18952669
Behav Neurosci. 1998 Jun;112(3):719-24
pubmed: 9676987
J Nerv Ment Dis. 1950 Jul;112(1):1-45
pubmed: 15422381
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Mar;98(3):456-462
pubmed: 27519928
Brain. 2013 Apr;136(Pt 4):1288-303
pubmed: 23358602
Neuroimage. 2001 Jun;13(6 Pt 1):1016-26
pubmed: 11352607
J Neurophysiol. 2022 Apr 1;127(4):856-868
pubmed: 35108107
Stroke. 2010 Apr;41(4):745-50
pubmed: 20167916
Clin Neurophysiol. 2008 Sep;119(9):2074-85
pubmed: 18571981
Brain. 1951 Dec;74(4):443-80
pubmed: 14895765
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Brain. 1973 Dec;96(4):653-74
pubmed: 4204228
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 1;8(1):2091
pubmed: 29391492
Neurology. 1991 Nov;41(11):1795-9
pubmed: 1944911
Exp Brain Res. 1989;74(2):311-8
pubmed: 2924851
Stroke. 1993 Jan;24(1):35-41
pubmed: 7678184
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1982;14(3):141-3
pubmed: 7134914
Ann Neurol. 1986 Sep;20(3):346-50
pubmed: 3767318
Neurology. 2021 May 25;96(21):e2576-e2586
pubmed: 33858997
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):396-409.e26
pubmed: 32220308
Brain. 1993 Apr;116 ( Pt 2):369-82
pubmed: 8461971
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Apr;75(4):394-8
pubmed: 8172497
Brain. 2002 Jan;125(Pt 1):176-98
pubmed: 11834603
Brain. 1947 Sep;70(Pt 3):329-54
pubmed: 20273036
Front Neurol. 2021 Jul 01;12:668923
pubmed: 34276535