Dose–Response Study of Mobilisation and Tactile Stimulation Therapy for the Upper Extremity Early After Stroke

Background. Physical therapy doses may need to be higher than provided in current clinical practice, especially for patients with severe paresis. The authors aimed to find the most effective and feasible dose of Mobilisation and Tactile Stimulation (MTS), which includes joint and soft-tissue mobilization and passive or active-assisted movement to enhance voluntary muscle contraction. Methods. This 2-center, randomized, controlled, observer-blinded feasibility trial compared conventional rehabilitation but no extra therapy (group 1) with conventional therapy plus 1 of 3 daily doses of MTS, up to 30 (group 2), 60 (group 3), or 120 (group 4) minutes for 14 days. The 76 participants had substantial paresis (Motricity Index [MI] < 61) a mean of 30 days (standard deviation [SD] = 20 days) after anterior circulation stroke. MTS was delivered using a standardized schedule of techniques (eg, sensory input, active-assisted movement). The primary outcome was the Motricity Index (MI) and secondary outcome was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) tested on day 16. Adverse events were monitored daily. Results. No difference was found in the change in control group MI compared with each of the 3 intervention groups ( P = .593) or in the ARAT. Mean actual daily treatment time for all MTS groups was less than expected. The attrition rate was 1.3%. No adverse events related to overuse occurred. Conclusion. The authors were not able to deliver a maximum dose of 120 minutes of daily therapy each day. The mean daily dose of MTS feasible for subsequent evaluation is between 37 and 66 minutes.

The effects of increased dose of exercise-based therapies to enhance motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Exercise-based therapy is known to enhance motor recovery after stroke but the most appropriate amount, i.e. the dose, of therapy is unknown. To determine the strength of current evidence for provision of a higher dose of the same types of exercise-based therapy to enhance motor recovery after stroke.

METHODS

An electronic search of: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, AMED, and CENTRAL was undertaken. Two independent reviewers selected studies using predetermined inclusion criteria: randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials with or without blinding of assessors; adults, 18+ years, with a clinical diagnosis of stroke; experimental and control group interventions identical except for dose; exercise-based interventions investigated; and outcome measures of motor impairment, movement control or functional activity. Two reviewers independently extracted outcome and follow-up data. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were interpreted with reference to risk of bias in included studies.

RESULTS

9 papers reporting 7 studies were included. Only 3 of the 7 included studies had all design elements assessed as low risk of bias. Intensity of the control intervention ranged from a mean of 9 to 28 hours over a maximum of 20 weeks. Experimental groups received between 14 and 92 hours of therapy over a maximum of 20 weeks. The included studies were heterogeneous with respect to types of therapy, outcome measures and time-points for outcome and follow-up. Consequently, most effect sizes relate to one study only. Single study effect sizes suggest a trend for better recovery with increased dose at the end of therapy but this trend was less evident at follow-up Meta-analysis was possible at outcome for: hand-grip strength, -10.1 [-19.1,-1.2] (2 studies, 97 participants); Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), 0.1 [-5.7,6.0] (3 studies, 126 participants); and comfortable walking speed, 0.3 [0.1,0.5] (2 studies, 58 participants). At follow-up, between 12 and 26 weeks after start of therapy, meta-analysis findings were: Motricity Arm, 10.7 [1.7,19.8] (2 studies, 83 participants); ARAT, 2.2 [-6.0,10.4] (2 studies, 83 participants); Rivermead Mobility, 1.0 [-0.6, 2.5] (2 studies, 83 participants); and comfortable walking speed, 0.2 [0.0,0.4] (2 studies, 60 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence provides some, but limited, support for the hypothesis that a higher dose of the same type of exercised-based therapy enhances motor recovery after stroke. Prospective dose-finding studies are required.

Motor Learning Principles for Rehabilitation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study in Poststroke Patients

Background. Six months after a stroke, the hemiplegic arm often remains compromised. More innovative approaches to motor rehabilitation are needed. Objective. The authors compared a motor learning—based approach in a virtual environment with more conventional upper extremity therapy in a pilot trial. Methods . This prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial compared reinforced feedback in a virtual environment (RFVE; n = 27) with a control intervention (n = 20) of progressive therapy for the affected upper extremity. Both treatments were provided for 4 weeks, 5 days per week, with 1-hour treatment sessions daily. The primary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (F-M UE) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores. Kinematic outcomes included mean duration (MD), mean linear velocity (MLV), and number of submovements to measure the motor performance. Analyses of the primary outcomes were performed per protocol and by intention to treat. Results. F-M UE scores improved significantly in the RFVE group compared with the conventional therapy group (“intention to treat” = 5.10 points, P = .004; ANCOVA = 4.26 points, P < .01). Several of the kinematic parameters improved in the RFVE group (MD, P < .01; MLV, P < .01). FIM improvements did not differ. Conclusions . Both rehabilitation therapies improved arm motor performance and functional activity, but the RFVE therapy induced more robust results in patients exposed to late rehabilitation treatment.

Standardizing the intensity of upper limb treatment in rehabilitation medicine

OBJECTIVE

To describe a treatment protocol for the upper limb that standardizes intensity of therapy input regardless of the severity of presentation.

DESIGN

The protocol is described (Part 1) and feasibility and effect explored (Part 2).

SUBJECTS

Participants (n = 11) had a single ischaemic stroke in the middle cerebral artery territory more than one year previously, and had residual weakness of the hand with some extension present at the wrist and the ability to grasp.

INTERVENTIONS

Following two baseline assessments, participants attended therapy for 1 hour a day for 10 consecutive working days. Treatment consisted of a combination of strength and functional task training. Outcomes were measured immediately after training, at one month and three months.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Intensity was measured with Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion. Secondary outcome measures included Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), nine-hole peg test, and Goal Attainment Scale.

RESULTS

Borg scores indicated that the level of intensity was appropriate and similar across all participants despite individual differences in the severity of their initial presentation (median (interquartile range) = 14 (13-15)). The mean ARAT score significantly increased by 6.8 points (chi(2)(3) = 15.618, P<0.001), and was maintained at three-month follow-up (z = - 2.384, P = 0.016). The nine-hole peg test also showed a main effect of time and 88% of goals set were achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

The physiotherapy protocol standardized intensity of treatment by grading exercise and task-related practice according to the person's residual ability, rather than simply standardizing treatment times. It was feasible and well tolerated in this group.

Motor rehabilitation after stroke, traumatic brain, and spinal cord injury: common denominators within recent clinical trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Experimental studies and clinical trials that aim to improve motor function for use of the upper extremity and walking are traditionally separated by the category of neurological disease. This boundary may deter investigators from finding common denominators in the conceptual basis and deployment of rehabilitation interventions, especially across nonprogressive diseases in adults, such as stroke, brain trauma, and spinal cord injury.

RECENT FINDINGS

The results of recent randomized clinical trials for walking by treadmill training and robotic devices and for the upper extremity by constraint-induced therapy, robotics, and brain stimulation suggest that more efficient strategies are needed to devise and prove the value of new therapies.

SUMMARY

Investigators should consider working across disease platforms to develop and test the most optimal methods for training patients, the most practical trial designs, the best dose-response characteristics of interventions, the most meaningful outcome measures, and the likelihood of transfer of trained performance to real-world settings. Clinicians in the community may be more likely to adopt evidence-based practices drawn from positive trial results if these treatment strategies focus on key motor impairments and related disabilities, rather than on diseases.

Efficacy of Functional Strength Training on Restoration of Lower-Limb Motor Function Early After Stroke: Phase I Randomized Controlled Trial

After stroke, physiotherapy can promote brain reorganization and motor recovery. Combining muscle strength and functional training (functional strength training, FST) may be beneficial. The aim of the authors was to compare FST with conventional physiotherapy (CPT) while controlling for the potential confounder of therapy intensity in a multicenter, randomized controlled observer-blind trial. The mean age of the participants was 68.3 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.03) years at a mean of 34 (SD = 20) days after stroke, with mean peak paretic knee extension torque (torque) of 22 (SD = 25) Nm. The estimated sample size was 102 to detect a between-group difference of 0.2 m/s in walking speed. After baseline measures, participants were allocated randomly to CPT or CPT + CPT or CPT + FST for 6 weeks. Additional experimental therapy was provided for up to 1 hour a day, 4 times each week. Outcomes were measured 6 weeks after baseline and at follow-up 12 weeks thereafter. Measures included walking speed, knee extensor torque, and functional mobility (Rivermead). At outcome, both extraintensity groups showed greater increases in walking speed than the CPT group, but this reached significance only for the CPT + CPT group ( P = .031). The CPT + CPT group also had a greater number of participants who walked at 0.8 m/s or above. No significant differences were observed for torque about the knee or for the Rivermead score. At follow-up, no significant differences were observed. These phase I results justify a subsequent trial of CPT + CPT versus CPT + FST.