Action Observation Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery in Patients with Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mancuso M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7996947 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC9354942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAction observation therapy and mirror therapy, two promising rehabilitation strategies, are aimed at enhancing the motor learning and functional improvement of stroke patients through different patterns of visual feedback and observation.ObjectiveThis study investigated and compared the treatment effects of the action observation therapy, mirror therapy, and active control intervention on motor and functional outcomes of stroke patients.MethodsTwenty-one patients with subacute stroke were recruited in this study. All patients were randomly assigned to the action observation therapy, mirror therapy, or active control intervention for 3 weeks. Outcome measures were conducted at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and secondary outcomes included the Box and Block Test, Functional Independence Measure, and Stroke Impact Scale. Descriptive analyses and the number of patients whose change score achieved minimal clinically important difference were reported.ResultsBoth the action observation therapy and active control intervention showed similar improvements on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Box and Block Test, and Stroke Impact Scale. Moreover, the action observation therapy had a greater improvement on the Functional Independence Measure than the other 2 groups did. However, the mirror therapy group gained the least improvements on the outcomes.ConclusionThe preliminary results found that the patients in the action observation therapy and active control intervention groups had comparable benefits, suggesting that the 2 treatments might be used as an alternative to each other. A further large-scale study with at least 20 patients in each group to validate the study findings is needed. This trial is registered with NCT02871700.
| S-EPMC7199557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the last few years, new noninvasive strategies have emerged as rehabilitative treatments for patients with stroke. Action observation treatment (AOT) is a rehabilitation approach based on the properties of the mirror neuron system with a positive impact on modifying cortical activation patterns and improving the upper limb kinematics. AOT involves the dynamic process of observing purposeful actions with the intention of imitating and then practicing those actions. In recent years, several clinical studies suggested the effectiveness of AOT in patients with stroke to improve motor recovery and autonomy in activities of daily living. However, a deeper knowledge of the behavior of the sensorimotor cortex during AOT seems to be essential.ObjectiveThe aim of this clinical trial, conducted in 2 neurorehabilitation centers and in patients' homes, is to investigate the effectiveness of AOT in patients with stroke, confirming the translational power of a tailored treatment. Particular emphasis will be placed on the predictive value of neurophysiological biomarkers. In addition, the feasibility and impact of a home-based AOT program will be investigated.MethodsA 3-arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial will be performed by enrolling patients with stroke in the chronic stage. A total of 60 participants will be randomly allocated to receive 15 sessions of AOT with different protocols (AOT at the hospital, AOT at home, and sham AOT), 3 sessions per week. The primary outcome will be assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity scores. Secondary outcomes will be clinical, biomechanical, and neurophysiological assessment.ResultsThe study protocol is part of a project (project code GR-2016-02361678) approved and funded by the Italian Ministry of Health. The study began with the recruitment phase in January 2022, and enrollment was expected to end in October 2022. Recruitment is now closed (December 2022). The results of this study are expected to be published in spring 2023. Upon completion of the analyses, we will examine the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention and neurophysiological outcomes.ConclusionsThis study will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 different AOT scenarios (ie, AOT at the hospital and AOT at home) in patients with chronic stroke and to assess the predictive value of neurophysiological biomarkers. Specifically, we will attempt to induce the functional modification of the cortical components by exploiting the features of the mirror neuron system, demonstrating relevant clinical, kinematic, and neurophysiological changes after AOT. With our study, we also want to provide, for the first time in Italy, the AOT home-based program while assessing its feasibility and impact.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04047134; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04047134.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/42094.
| S-EPMC10160932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study was designed to examine the feasibility of immersive virtual reality mirror therapy for upper limb paresis after stroke using a head-mounted display and provide preliminary evidence of efficacy.DesignTen outpatients with chronic stroke, upper limb hemiparesis, and a low predisposition for motion sickness completed a 12-session program of 30 mins each of immersive virtual reality mirror therapy. The virtual reality system provided the illusion of movement in the hemiparetic upper limb while suppressing the visual representation of the nonparetic side. Feasibility was assessed via patient compliance, adverse event tracking, the System Usability Scale, and the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated using the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity and Action Research Arm Test.ResultsImmersive virtual reality mirror therapy for patients with chronic stroke was safe, well-tolerated, and without adverse events, such as simulator sickness. Motor outcomes revealed a small improvement for the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity from 21.7 (SD = 8.68) to 22.8 (SD = 9.19) that did not achieve statistical significance (P = 0.084).ConclusionsFour weeks of immersive virtual reality mirror therapy was well-tolerated by chronic stroke patients. Our findings support further clinical trials of immersive virtual reality technologies and visually enhanced mirror therapies for stroke survivors.
| S-EPMC6697203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeThis study compared the effect of cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), electromyographically (EMG)-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation on motor impairment and activity limitations in patients with upper-limb hemiplegia.MethodsThis was a multicenter, single-blind, multiarm parallel-group study of nonhospitalized hemiplegic stroke survivors within 6 months of stroke. A total of 122 individuals were randomized to receive either cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, or sensory stimulation twice every weekday in 40-minute sessions, over an 8 week-period. Patients were followed for 6 months after treatment concluded.ResultsThere were significant increases in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment [F(1, 111) = 92.6, P < .001], FMA Wrist and Hand [F(1, 111) = 66.7, P < .001], and modified Arm Motor Ability Test [mAMAT; time effect: F(1, 111) = 91.0, P < .001] for all 3 groups. There was no significant difference in the improvement among groups in the FMA [F(2, 384) = 0.2, P = .83], FMA Wrist and Hand [F(2, 384) = 0.4, P = .70], or the mAMAT [F(2, 379) = 1.2, P = .31].ConclusionsAll groups exhibited significant improvement of impairment and functional limitation with electrical stimulation therapy applied within 6 months of stroke. Improvements were likely a result of spontaneous recovery. There was no difference based on the type of electrical stimulation that was administered.
| S-EPMC5048487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) improves upper limb (UL) motor execution in unilateral cerebral palsy (uCP). As these children also show motor planning deficits, action-observation training (AOT) might be of additional value. Here, we investigated the combined value of AOT to mCIMT on UL kinematics in children with uCP in a randomized controlled trial. Thirty-six children with uCP completed an UL kinematic and clinical evaluation after participating in a 9-day mCIMT camp wearing a splint for 6 h/day. The experimental group (mCIMT + AOT, n = 20) received 15 h of AOT, i.e. video-observation and execution of unimanual tasks. The control group (mCIMT + placebo, n = 16) watched biological-motion free videos and executed the same tasks. We examined changes in motor control (movement duration, peak velocity, time-to-peak velocity, and trajectory straightness) and kinematic movement patterns (using Statistical Parametric Mapping) during the execution of three unimanual, relevant tasks before the intervention, after and at 6 months follow-up. Adding AOT to mCIMT mainly affected movement duration during reaching, whereas little benefit is seen on UL movement patterns. mCIMT, with or without AOT, improved peak velocity and trajectory straightness, and proximal movement patterns. Clinical and kinematic improvements are poorly related. Although there seem to be limited benefits of AOT to CIMT on UL kinematics, our results support the inclusion of kinematics to capture changes in motor control and movement patterns of the proximal joints.
| S-EPMC7320002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStroke produces multiple symptoms, including sensory, motor, cognitive and psychological dysfunctions, among which motor deficit is the most common and is widely recognized as a major contributor to long-term functional disability. Robot-assisted training is effective in promoting upper extremity muscle strength and motor impairment recovery after stroke. Additionally, action observation treatment can enhance the effects of physical and occupational therapy by increasing neural activation. The AOT-EXO trial aims to investigate whether action observation treatment coupled with robot-assisted training could enhance motor circuit activation and improve upper extremity motor outcomes.MethodsThe AOT-EXO trial is a multicentre, prospective, three-group randomized controlled trial (RCT). We will screen and enrol 132 eligible patients in the trial implemented in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Tongji Hospital, Optical Valley Branch of Tongji Hospital and Hubei Province Hospital of Integrated Chinese & Western Medicine in Wuhan, China. Prior to study participation, written informed consent will be obtained from eligible patients in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The enrolled stroke patients will be randomized to three groups: the CT group (conventional therapy); EXO group (exoskeleton therapy) and AOT-EXO group (action observation treatment-based exoskeleton therapy). The patients will undergo blinded assessments at baseline, post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and follow-up (after 12 weeks). The primary outcome will be the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE). Secondary outcomes will include the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), modified Barthel Index (MBI), kinematic metrics assessed by inertial measurement unit (IMU), resting motor threshold (rMT), motor evoked potentials (MEP), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and safety outcomes.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and efficacy of the action observation treatment-based exoskeleton (AOT-EXO) for post-stroke upper extremity rehabilitation and elucidate the potential underlying kinematic and neurological mechanisms.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900026656 . Registered on 17 October 2019.
| S-EPMC7981809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Many stroke survivors suffer from sensory impairments of their affected upper limb (UL). Although such impairments can affect the ability to use the UL in everyday activities, very little attention is paid to sensory impairments in stroke rehabilitation. The purpose of this trial is to investigate if sensory re-learning in combination with task-specific training may prove to be more effective than task-specific training alone to improve sensory function of the hand, dexterity, the ability to use the hand in daily activities, perceived participation, and life satisfaction. METHODS/DESIGN:This study is a single-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two treatment arms. The participants will be randomly assigned either to sensory re-learning in combination with task-specific training (sensory group) or to task-specific training only (control group). The training will consist of 2.5 h of group training per session, 2 times per week for 5 weeks. The primary outcome measures to assess sensory function are as follows: Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, Shape/Texture Identification (STI™) test, Fugl-Meyer Assessment-upper extremity (FMA-UE; sensory section), and tactile object identification test. The secondary outcome measures to assess motor function are as follows: Box and Block Test (BBT), mini Sollerman Hand Function Test (mSHFT), Modified Motor Assessment Scale (M-MAS), and Grippit. To assess the ability to use the hand in daily activities, perceived participation, and life satisfaction, the Motor Activity Log (MAL), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) participation domain, and Life Satisfaction checklist will be used. Assessments will be performed pre- and post-training and at 3-month follow-up by independent assessors, who are blinded to the participants' group allocation. At the 3-month follow-up, the participants in the sensory group will also be interviewed about their general experience of the training and how effective they perceived the training. DISCUSSION:The results from this study can add new knowledge about the effectiveness of sensory re-learning in combination with task-specific training on UL functioning after stroke. If the new training approach proves efficient, the results can provide information on how to design a larger RCT in the future in persons with sensory impairments of the UL after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03336749 . Registered on 8 November 2017.
| S-EPMC5904984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rehabilitation for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy (HCP) aimed to improve function of the impaired upper limb (UL) uses a wide range of intervention programs. A new rehabilitative approach, called Action-Observation Therapy, based on the recent discovery of mirror neurons, has been used in adult stroke but not in children. The purpose of the present study is to design a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for evaluating the efficacy of Action-Observation Therapy in improving UL activity in children with HCP.The trial is designed according to CONSORT Statement. It is a randomised, evaluator-blinded, match-pair group trial. Children with HCP will be randomised within pairs to either experimental or control group. The experimental group will perform an Action-Observation Therapy, called UP-CAT (Upper Limb-Children Action-Observation Training) in which they will watch video sequences showing goal-directed actions, chosen according to children UL functional level, combined with motor training with their hemiplegic UL. The control group will perform the same tailored actions after watching computer games. A careful revision of psychometric properties of UL outcome measures for children with hemiplegia was performed. Assisting Hand Assessment was chosen as primary measure and, based on its calculation power, a sample size of 12 matched pairs was established. Moreover, Melbourne and ABILHAND-Kids were included as secondary measures. The time line of assessments will be T0 (in the week preceding the onset of the treatment), T1 and T2 (in the week after the end of the treatment and 8 weeks later, respectively). A further assessment will be performed at T3 (24 weeks after T1), to evaluate the retention of effects. In a subgroup of children enrolled in both groups functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, exploring the mirror system and sensory-motor function, will be performed at T0, T1 and T2.The paper aims to describe the methodology of a RCT for evaluating the efficacy of Action-Observation Therapy in improving UL activity in children with hemiplegia. This study will be the first to test this new type of treatment in childhood. The paper presents the theoretical background, study hypotheses, outcome measures and trial methodology.NCT01016496.
| S-EPMC3141400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEfficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA in post-stroke upper-limb spasticity were studied.MethodsSubjects randomized 2:1 to incobotulinumtoxinA (fixed dose 400 U) or placebo, with fixed doses for the primary target clinical pattern (PTCP; flexed elbow, 200 U; flexed wrist, 150 U; clenched fist, 100 U). Doses for non-primary patterns were flexible within predefined ranges.ResultsAt week 4, incobotulinumtoxinA led to larger improvements in PTCP Ashworth scale (AS) scores than placebo [least-squares mean change ± standard error: -0.9 ± 0.06 (n = 171) vs. -0.5 ± 0.08 (n = 88); P < 0.001], and more subjects were PTCP AS responders (≥1-point improvement) with incobotulinumtoxinA (69.6%) than with placebo (37.5%; P < 0.001). Investigator's Global Impression of Change confirmed superiority of incobotulinumtoxinA vs. placebo (P = 0.003). IncobotulinumtoxinA was associated with functional improvements, as demonstrated in responder rates for Disability Assessment Scale principal target at week 4 (P = 0.007). Adverse events were mainly mild/moderate, and were reported by 22.4% (incobotulinumtoxinA) and 16.8% (placebo) of subjects.ConclusionsIncobotulinumtoxinA significantly improved upper-limb spasticity and associated disability, and was well-tolerated.
| S-EPMC5064747 | biostudies-literature