Dataset Information

Sensorimotor vs. Motor Upper Limb Therapy for Patients With Motor and Somatosensory Deficits: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Early Rehabilitation Phase After Stroke.

ABSTRACT: Background: Somatosensory function plays an important role in motor learning. More than half of the stroke patients have somatosensory impairments in the upper limb, which could hamper recovery. Question: Is sensorimotor upper limb (UL) therapy of more benefit for motor and somatosensory outcome than motor therapy? Design: Randomized assessor- blinded multicenter controlled trial with block randomization stratified for neglect, severity of motor impairment, and type of stroke. Participants: 40 first-ever stroke patients with UL sensorimotor impairments admitted to the rehabilitation center. Intervention: Both groups received 16 h of additional therapy over 4 weeks consisting of sensorimotor (N = 22) or motor (N = 18) UL therapy. Outcome measures: Action Research Arm test (ARAT) as primary outcome, and other motor and somatosensory measures were assessed at baseline, post-intervention and after 4 weeks follow-up. Results: No significant between-group differences were found for change scores in ARAT or any somatosensory measure between the three time points. For UL impairment (Fugl-Meyer assessment), a significant greater improvement was found for the motor group compared to the sensorimotor group from baseline to post-intervention [mean (SD) improvement 14.65 (2.19) vs. 5.99 (2.06); p = 0.01] and from baseline to follow-up [17.38 (2.37) vs. 6.75 (2.29); p = 0.003]. Conclusion: UL motor therapy may improve motor impairment more than UL sensorimotor therapy in patients with sensorimotor impairments in the early rehabilitation phase post stroke. For these patients, integrated sensorimotor therapy may not improve somatosensory function and may be less effective for motor recovery. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03236376.

SUBMITTER: De Bruyn N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7746814 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sensorimotor vs. Motor Upper Limb Therapy for Patients With Motor and Somatosensory Deficits: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Early Rehabilitation Phase After Stroke.

De Bruyn Nele N Saenen Leen L Thijs Liselot L Van Gils Annick A Ceulemans Eva E Essers Bea B Lafosse Christophe C Michielsen Marc M Beyens Hilde H Schillebeeckx Fabienne F Alaerts Kaat K Verheyden Geert G

Frontiers in neurology 20201204

Background: Somatosensory function plays an important role in motor learning. More than half of the stroke patients have somatosensory impairments in the upper limb, which could hamper recovery. Question: Is sensorimotor upper limb (UL) therapy of more benefit for motor and somatosensory outcome than motor therapy? Design: Randomized assessor- blinded multicenter controlled trial with block randomization stratified for neglect, severity of motor impairment, and type of strok ...[more]

PMID: 33343498

Similar Datasets

Project description:Upper limb motor deficits in severe stroke survivors often remain unresolved over extended time periods. Novel neurotechnologies have the potential to significantly support upper limb motor restoration in severely impaired stroke individuals. Here, we review recent controlled clinical studies and reviews focusing on the mechanisms of action and effectiveness of single and combined technology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation after stroke, including robotics, muscular electrical stimulation, brain stimulation and brain computer/machine interfaces. We aim at identifying possible guidance for the optimal use of these new technologies to enhance upper limb motor recovery especially in severe chronic stroke patients. We found that the current literature does not provide enough evidence to support strict guidelines, because of the variability of the procedures for each intervention and of the heterogeneity of the stroke population. The present results confirm that neurotechnology-aided upper limb rehabilitation is promising for severe chronic stroke patients, but the combination of interventions often lacks understanding of single intervention mechanisms of action, which may not reflect the summation of single intervention's effectiveness. Stroke rehabilitation is a long and complex process, and one single intervention administrated in a short time interval cannot have a large impact for motor recovery, especially in severely impaired patients. To design personalized interventions combining or proposing different interventions in sequence, it is necessary to have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms determining the effectiveness of a single treatment in this heterogeneous population of stroke patients. We encourage the identification of objective biomarkers for stroke recovery for patients' stratification and to tailor treatments. Furthermore, the advantage of longitudinal personalized trial designs compared to classical double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials as the basis for precise personalized stroke rehabilitation medicine is discussed. Finally, we also promote the necessary conceptual change from 'one-suits-all' treatments within in-patient clinical rehabilitation set-ups towards personalized home-based treatment strategies, by adopting novel technologies merging rehabilitation and motor assistance, including implantable ones.

Project description:BackgroundAction observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.ObjectivesTo assess whether AO enhances upper limb motor function in people with stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (18 May 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 May 2021), Embase (1974 to 18 May 2021), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb (arm and hand) motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials according to the predefined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 1, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.Main resultsWe included 16 trials involving 574 individuals. Most trials provided AO followed by the practice of motor actions. Training varied between 1 day and 8 weeks of therapy, 10 to 90 minutes per session. The time of AO ranged from 1 minute to 10 minutes for each motor action, task or movement observed. The total number of motor actions ranged from 1 to 3. Control comparisons included sham observation, physical therapy, and functional activity practice.Primary outcomesAO improved arm function (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.61; 11 trials, 373 participants; low-certainty evidence); and improved hand function (mean difference (MD) 2.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.49; 5 trials, 178 participants; low-certainty evidence).Secondary outcomesAO did not improve ADL performance (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.08; 7 trials, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (MD 5.52, 95% CI -30.74 to 41.78; 2 trials, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool the other secondary outcomes (motor performance and cortical activation). Only two trials reported adverse events without significant adverse effects.Authors' conclusionsThe effects of AO are small for arm function compared to any control group; for hand function the effects are large, but not clinically significant. For both, the certainty of evidence is low. There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from AO on ADL and quality of life of people with stroke; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.

Project description:Somatosensory function plays an important role for upper limb motor learning. However, knowledge about underlying mechanisms of sensorimotor therapy is lacking. We aim to investigate differences in therapy-induced resting-state functional connectivity changes between additional sensorimotor compared with motor therapy in the early-phase post stroke. Thirty first-stroke patients with a sensorimotor impairment were included for an assessor-blinded multi-centre randomized controlled trial within 8 weeks post stroke [13 (43%) females; mean age: 67 ± 13 years; mean time post stroke: 43 ± 13 days]. Patients were randomly assigned to additional sensorimotor (n = 18) or motor (n = 12) therapy, receiving 16 h of additional therapy within 4 weeks. Sensorimotor evaluations and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging were performed at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2) and after 4 weeks follow-up (T3). Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging was also performed in an age-matched healthy control group (n = 19) to identify patterns of aberrant connectivity in stroke patients between hemispheres, or within ipsilesional and contralesional hemispheres. Mixed model analysis investigated session and treatment effects between stroke therapy groups. Non-parametric partial correlations were used to investigate brain-behaviour associations with age and frame-wise displacement as nuisance regressors. Connections within the contralesional hemisphere that showed hypo-connectivity in subacute stroke patients (compared with healthy controls) showed a trend towards a more pronounced pre-to-post normalization (less hypo-connectivity) in the motor therapy group, compared with the sensorimotor therapy group (mean estimated difference = -0.155 ± 0.061; P = 0.02). Further, the motor therapy group also tended to show a further pre-to-post increase in functional connectivity strength among connections that already showed hyper-connectivity in the stroke patients at baseline versus healthy controls (mean estimated difference = -0.144 ± 0.072; P = 0.06). Notably, these observed increases in hyper-connectivity of the contralesional hemisphere were positively associated with improvements in functional activity (r = 0.48), providing indications that these patterns of hyper-connectivity are compensatory in nature. The sensorimotor and motor therapy group showed no significant differences in terms of pre-to-post changes in inter-hemispheric connectivity or ipsilesional intrahemispheric connectivity. While effects are only tentative within this preliminary sample, results suggest a possible stronger normalization of hypo-connectivity and a stronger pre-to-post increase in compensatory hyper-connectivity of the contralesional hemisphere after motor therapy compared with sensorimotor therapy. Future studies with larger patient samples are however recommended to confirm these trend-based preliminary findings.

Project description:Evidence exist that motor observation activates the same cortical motor areas that are involved in the performance of the observed actions. The so called "mirror neuron system" has been proposed to be responsible for this phenomenon. We employ this neural system and its capability to re-enact stored motor representations as a tool for rehabilitating motor control. In our new neurorehabilitative schema (videotherapy) we combine observation of daily actions with concomitant physical training of the observed actions focusing on the upper limbs. Following a pilot study in chronic patients in an ambulatory setting, we currently designed a new multicenter clinical study dedicated to patients in the sub-acute state after stroke using a home-based self-induced training. Within our protocol we assess 1) the capability of action observation to elicit rehabilitational effects in the motor system, and 2) the capacity of this schema to be performed by patients without assistance from a physiotherapist. The results of this study would be of high health and economical relevance.A controlled, randomized, multicenter, paralleled, 6?month follow-up study will be conducted on three groups of patients: one group will be given the experimental treatment whereas the other two will participate in control treatments. All patients will undergo their usual rehabilitative treatment beside participation in the study. The experimental condition consists in the observation and immediate imitation of common daily hand and arm actions. The two parallel control groups are a placebo group and a group receiving usual rehabilitation without any trial-related treatment. Trial randomization is provided via external data management. The primary efficacy endpoint is the improvement of the experimental group in a standardized motor function test (Wolf Motor Function Test) relative to control groups. Further assessments refer to subjective and qualitative rehabilitational scores. This study has been reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Aachen University.This therapy provides an extension of therapeutic procedures for recovery after stroke and emphasizes the importance of action perception in neurorehabilitation The results of the study could become implemented into the wide physiotherapeutic practice, for example as an ad on and individualized therapy.

Dataset Information

Sensorimotor vs. Motor Upper Limb Therapy for Patients With Motor and Somatosensory Deficits: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Early Rehabilitation Phase After Stroke.

Publications

Sensorimotor vs. Motor Upper Limb Therapy for Patients With Motor and Somatosensory Deficits: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Early Rehabilitation Phase After Stroke.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets