The Evolution of Hand Proprioceptive and Motor Impairments in the Sub-Acute Phase After Stroke.
hand
motor activity
proprioception
recovery
robotics
stroke
Journal
Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
ISSN: 1552-6844
Titre abrégé: Neurorehabil Neural Repair
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100892086
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Hand proprioception is essential for fine movements and therefore many activities of daily living. Although frequently impaired after stroke, it is unclear how hand proprioception evolves in the sub-acute phase and whether it follows a similar pattern of changes as motor impairments. This work investigates whether there is a corresponding pattern of changes over time in hand proprioception and motor function as comprehensively quantified by a combination of robotic, clinical, and neurophysiological assessments. Finger proprioception (position sense) and motor function (force, velocity, range of motion) were evaluated using robotic assessments at baseline (<3 months after stroke) and up to 4 weeks later (discharge). Clinical assessments (among others, Box & Block Test [BBT]) as well as Somatosensory/Motor Evoked Potentials (SSEP/MEP) were additionally performed. Complete datasets from 45 participants post-stroke were obtained. For 42% of all study participants proprioception and motor function had a dissociated pattern of changes (only 1 function considerably improved). This dissociation was either due to the absence of a measurable impairment in 1 modality at baseline, or due to a severe lesion of central somatosensory or motor tracts (absent SSEP/MEP). Better baseline BBT correlated with proprioceptive gains, while proprioceptive impairment at baseline did not correlate with change in BBT. Proprioception and motor function frequently followed a dissociated pattern of changes in sub-acute stroke. This highlights the importance of monitoring both functions, which could help to further personalize therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hand proprioception is essential for fine movements and therefore many activities of daily living. Although frequently impaired after stroke, it is unclear how hand proprioception evolves in the sub-acute phase and whether it follows a similar pattern of changes as motor impairments.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This work investigates whether there is a corresponding pattern of changes over time in hand proprioception and motor function as comprehensively quantified by a combination of robotic, clinical, and neurophysiological assessments.
METHODS
METHODS
Finger proprioception (position sense) and motor function (force, velocity, range of motion) were evaluated using robotic assessments at baseline (<3 months after stroke) and up to 4 weeks later (discharge). Clinical assessments (among others, Box & Block Test [BBT]) as well as Somatosensory/Motor Evoked Potentials (SSEP/MEP) were additionally performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Complete datasets from 45 participants post-stroke were obtained. For 42% of all study participants proprioception and motor function had a dissociated pattern of changes (only 1 function considerably improved). This dissociation was either due to the absence of a measurable impairment in 1 modality at baseline, or due to a severe lesion of central somatosensory or motor tracts (absent SSEP/MEP). Better baseline BBT correlated with proprioceptive gains, while proprioceptive impairment at baseline did not correlate with change in BBT.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Proprioception and motor function frequently followed a dissociated pattern of changes in sub-acute stroke. This highlights the importance of monitoring both functions, which could help to further personalize therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37953595
doi: 10.1177/15459683231207355
pmc: PMC10685702
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
823-836Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Clin Rehabil. 2008 Aug;22(8):758-67
pubmed: 18678576
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Jan-Feb;22(1):64-71
pubmed: 17687024
Clin Rehabil. 2004 Mar;18(2):149-55
pubmed: 15053123
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Apr 30;13(1):42
pubmed: 27130577
Clin Interv Aging. 2012;7:499-507
pubmed: 23226011
J Neurosci. 2012 Jun 27;32(26):9000-6
pubmed: 22745499
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Oct;33(10):848-861
pubmed: 31434533
Neurology. 2019 Mar 5;92(10):e1098-e1108
pubmed: 30728310
Neurosci Lett. 2011 Aug 15;500(2):108-12
pubmed: 21704124
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Mar;68(3):323-31
pubmed: 10675214
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Sep;33(9):740-750
pubmed: 31319755
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Feb 22;21(4):
pubmed: 33671505
Stroke. 2015 Dec;46(12):3459-69
pubmed: 26542695
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):232-40
pubmed: 12234086
Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Apr 06;12:635-643
pubmed: 28435235
Aust Occup Ther J. 2015 Apr;62(2):93-104
pubmed: 25615889
Stroke. 2006 Sep;37(9):2348-53
pubmed: 16931787
Exp Brain Res. 2016 Jan;234(1):83-93
pubmed: 26378004
Neurophysiol Clin. 2019 Apr;49(2):149-164
pubmed: 30391148
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Mar-Apr;22(2):166-72
pubmed: 17687023
Physiol Rev. 2012 Oct;92(4):1651-97
pubmed: 23073629
Front Integr Neurosci. 2019 May 22;13:16
pubmed: 31191265
Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2023 Feb;70:104521
pubmed: 36701909
Front Neurosci. 2019 Apr 30;13:402
pubmed: 31114472
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Mar-Apr;27(3):240-50
pubmed: 23077144
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Oct 04;9:72
pubmed: 23035968
Am J Occup Ther. 2018 May/Jun;72(3):7203205100p1-7203205100p10
pubmed: 29689179
Exp Brain Res. 2018 Aug;236(8):2137-2155
pubmed: 29779050
Stroke. 2005 Dec;36(12):2648-53
pubmed: 16269647
Front Rehabil Sci. 2022 Apr 08;3:830166
pubmed: 36188962
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Jun 29;10:316
pubmed: 27445756
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016 Jul;40(3):186-95
pubmed: 27214520
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40
pubmed: 19261767
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:441-446
pubmed: 31374669
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
pubmed: 15817019
Phys Ther Rev (1948). 1953 Feb;33(2):53-64
pubmed: 13026412
J Alzheimers Dis. 2016 May 31;53(3):1107-14
pubmed: 27258421
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Nov;33(11):888-901
pubmed: 31416391
Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2007 Jun;9(3):221-8
pubmed: 17601386
Int J Stroke. 2017 Jul;12(5):480-493
pubmed: 28697711
J Neurosci. 2010 Apr 14;30(15):5384-93
pubmed: 20392960
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Sep;30(8):731-42
pubmed: 26719352
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020 May;34(5):403-416
pubmed: 32391744
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Sep;35(9):812-822
pubmed: 34219510
Phys Ther. 2010 Aug;90(8):1176-84
pubmed: 20522675
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):335-53
pubmed: 21674387
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jul 16;18(1):115
pubmed: 34271954
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Ann Neurol. 2015 Dec;78(6):848-59
pubmed: 26150318
Phys Ther. 2008 May;88(5):652-63
pubmed: 18326055
Age Ageing. 1996 Nov;25(6):479-89
pubmed: 9003886
Ann Neurol. 1989 Jan;25(1):68-73
pubmed: 2913930
Phys Ther. 2014 Sep;94(9):1220-31
pubmed: 24764072
PLoS Comput Biol. 2008 Aug 22;4(8):e1000133
pubmed: 18769588