Neck muscle vibration and prism adaptation fail to improve balance disturbances after stroke: A multicentre randomised controlled study.

Neck vibration Postural balance Prism adaptation Rehabilitation Stroke

Journal

Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine
ISSN: 1877-0665
Titre abrégé: Ann Phys Rehabil Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101502773

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 21 10 2022
revised: 19 04 2024
accepted: 19 05 2024
medline: 23 8 2024
pubmed: 23 8 2024
entrez: 22 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Pilot studies suggest potential effects of neck muscle vibration (NMV) and prism adaptation (PA) on postural balance disturbances related to spatial cognition. To evaluate the effect of 10 sessions of NMV and/or PA on ML deviation. We used the mediolateral centre of pressure position (ML deviation) as a biomarker for spatial cognition perturbation, hypothesising that PA and NMV would improve ML deviation, with a potential synergistic impact when used together. We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled study. Participants within 9 months of a right-hemisphere supratentorial stroke and with less than 40% body weight supported on the paretic side in standing were randomised into 4 groups (PA, NMV, PA+NMV, or control). ML deviation at Day 14. force platform data, balance abilities, autonomy, and ML deviation, measured just after the first session (Day 1), at Day 90, and Day 180. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) assessed intervention effects on these outcomes, adjusting for initial ML deviation and incorporating other relevant factors. 89 participants were randomised and data from 80 participants, mean (SD) age 59.2 (10.2) years, mean time since stroke 94 (61) days were analysed. At Day 14, a weak time x group interaction (P = .001, omega-squared = 0.08) was found, with no significant between-group differences in ML deviation (P = .12) or in secondary outcomes (P = .08). Between-group differences were found on Day 1 (P = .03), Day 90 (P = .001) and Day 180 (P < .0001) regardless of age and stroke-related data. On Day 1, ML deviation improved in both the PA and NMV groups (P = .03 and P = .01). In contrast, ML deviation deteriorated in the NMV+PA group on Day 90 and Day 180 (P = .01 and P = .01). The study found no evidence of any beneficial effects of repeated unimodal or combined sessions of NMV and/or PA on ML deviation after stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01677091.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Pilot studies suggest potential effects of neck muscle vibration (NMV) and prism adaptation (PA) on postural balance disturbances related to spatial cognition.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of 10 sessions of NMV and/or PA on ML deviation. We used the mediolateral centre of pressure position (ML deviation) as a biomarker for spatial cognition perturbation, hypothesising that PA and NMV would improve ML deviation, with a potential synergistic impact when used together.
METHODS METHODS
We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled study. Participants within 9 months of a right-hemisphere supratentorial stroke and with less than 40% body weight supported on the paretic side in standing were randomised into 4 groups (PA, NMV, PA+NMV, or control).
PRIMARY OUTCOME METHODS
ML deviation at Day 14.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES RESULTS
force platform data, balance abilities, autonomy, and ML deviation, measured just after the first session (Day 1), at Day 90, and Day 180. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) assessed intervention effects on these outcomes, adjusting for initial ML deviation and incorporating other relevant factors.
RESULTS RESULTS
89 participants were randomised and data from 80 participants, mean (SD) age 59.2 (10.2) years, mean time since stroke 94 (61) days were analysed. At Day 14, a weak time x group interaction (P = .001, omega-squared = 0.08) was found, with no significant between-group differences in ML deviation (P = .12) or in secondary outcomes (P = .08). Between-group differences were found on Day 1 (P = .03), Day 90 (P = .001) and Day 180 (P < .0001) regardless of age and stroke-related data. On Day 1, ML deviation improved in both the PA and NMV groups (P = .03 and P = .01). In contrast, ML deviation deteriorated in the NMV+PA group on Day 90 and Day 180 (P = .01 and P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The study found no evidence of any beneficial effects of repeated unimodal or combined sessions of NMV and/or PA on ML deviation after stroke.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01677091.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39173550
pii: S1877-0657(24)00055-1
doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2024.101871
pii:
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01677091']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

101871

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Auteurs

Stephanie Leplaideur (S)

CHU Rennes, Hopital Pontchaillou, service MPR adulte, Rennes, France; Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Inserm, Irisa UMR 6074, EMPENN-ERL, U1228, Rennes, France; Inserm, CIC 1414, Rennes, France; CRRF Kerpape, Ploemeur, France. Electronic address: stephanie.leplaideur@chu-rennes.fr.

Etienne Allart (E)

CHU de Lille, Service de Rééducation Neurologique Cérébrolésion, INSERM U1172 Lille Neuroscience et Cognition, Université de Lille, Lille, France.

Lucie Chochina (L)

CRRF Kerpape, Ploemeur, France.

Dominic Pérennou (D)

Univ. Grenoble Alpes, UMR CNRS 5105 Neuropsychology and NeuroCognition, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Dept of NeuroRehabilitation South Hospital, Cs 10217 - 38043 Grenoble cedex 9, France.

Gilles Rode (G)

Hospices civils de Lyon, Hopital Henry-Gabrielle, Service de MPR, Saint-Genis-Laval, France.

François Constant Boyer (FC)

CHRU Reims, Unités de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Hôpital Sébastopol, Université Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA), EA3797, Reims, France.

Jean Paysant (J)

Institut Régional de Réadaptation, Nancy, France.

Alain Yelnik (A)

APHP Lariboisière, Université Paris Diderot,service MPR, GH Saint Louis - Lariboisière - F. Widal, Paris, France.

Karim Jamal (K)

Inserm, CIC 1414, Rennes, France.

Quentin Duché (Q)

Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Inserm, Irisa UMR 6074, EMPENN-ERL, U1228, Rennes, France.

Jean-François Morcet (JF)

Inserm, CIC 1414, Rennes, France.

Bruno Laviolle (B)

Inserm, CIC 1414, Rennes, France; Univ Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414, Rennes, France.

Benoit Combès (B)

Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Inserm, Irisa UMR 6074, EMPENN-ERL, U1228, Rennes, France.

Elise Bannier (E)

Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Inserm, Irisa UMR 6074, EMPENN-ERL, U1228, Rennes, France; CHU Rennes, Department of Radiology, Rennes, France.

Isabelle Bonan (I)

CHU Rennes, Hopital Pontchaillou, service MPR adulte, Rennes, France; Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, Inserm, Irisa UMR 6074, EMPENN-ERL, U1228, Rennes, France; Inserm, CIC 1414, Rennes, France.

Classifications MeSH