Does Upper Extremity Proprioceptive Training Have an Impact on Functional Outcomes in Chronic Stroke Patients?

Post-Stroke Impairments of Manual Dexterity and Finger Proprioception: Their Contribution to Upper Limb Activity Capacity

BACKGROUND

Knowing how impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception affect upper limb activity capacity is important for delineating targeted post-stroke interventions for upper limb recovery.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain variance in post-stroke activity capacity, and whether they explain more variance than conventional clinical assessments of upper limb sensorimotor impairments.

METHODS

Activity capacity and hand sensorimotor impairments were assessed using clinical measures in N = 42 late subacute/chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Dexterity was evaluated using the Dextrain Manipulandum to quantify accuracy of visuomotor finger force-tracking (N = 36), timing of rhythmic tapping (N = 36), and finger individuation (N = 24), as well as proprioception (N = 27). Stepwise multivariate and hierarchical linear regression models were used to identify impairments best explaining activity capacity.

RESULTS

Dexterity and proprioceptive components significantly increased the variance explained in activity capacity: (i) Box and Block Test was best explained by baseline tonic force during force-tracking and tapping frequency (adjusted R2 = .51); (ii) Motor Activity Log was best explained by success rate in finger individuation (adjusted R2 = .46); (iii) Action Research Arm Test was best explained by release of finger force and proprioceptive measures (improved reaction time related to use of proprioception; adjusted R2 = .52); and (iv) Moberg Pick-Up test was best explained by proprioceptive function (adjusted R2 = .18). Models excluding dexterity and proprioception variables explained up to 19% less variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain unique variance in activity capacity not captured by conventional impairment measures and should be assessed when considering the underlying causes of post-stroke activity capacity limitations.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03934073.

Effects of an assist-as-needed equipped Tenodesis-Induced-Grip Exoskeleton Robot (TIGER) on upper limb function in patients with chronic stroke

BACKGROUND

The original version of the Tenodesis-Induced-Grip Exoskeleton Robot (TIGER) significantly improved the motor and functional performance of the affected upper extremity of chronic stroke patients. The assist-as-needed (AAN) technique in robot-involved therapy is widely favored for promoting patient active involvement, thereby fostering motor recovery. However, the TIGER lacked an AAN control strategy, which limited its use in different clinical applications. The present study aimed to develop and analyze the training effects of an AAN control mode to be integrated into the TIGER, to analyze the impact of baseline patient characteristics and training paradigms on outcomes for individuals with chronic stroke and to compare training effects on the upper limb function between using the AAN-equipped TIGER and using the original prototype.

METHODS

This was a single-arm prospective interventional study which was conducted at a university hospital. In addition to 20 min of regular task-specific motor training, each participant completed a 20-min robotic training program consisting of 10 min in the AAN control mode and 10 min in the functional mode. The training sessions took place twice a week for 9 weeks. The primary outcome was the change score of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), and the secondary outcomes were the change score of the Box and Blocks Test (BBT), the amount of use (AOU) and quality of movement (QOM) scales of the Motor Activity Log (MAL), the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament (SWM) test, and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) for fingers and wrist joints. The Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and stepwise regression model were used as the statistical analysis methods.

RESULTS

Sixteen chronic stroke patients completed all steps of the study. The time from stroke onset to entry into the trial was 21.7 ± 18.9 months. After completing the training with the AAN-equipped TIGER, they exhibited significant improvements in movement reflected in their total score (pre/post values were 34.6 ± 11.5/38.5 ± 13.4) and all their sub-scores (pre/post values were 21.5 ± 6.0/23.3 ± 6.5, 9.5 ± 6.2/11.3 ± 7.2, and 3.6 ± 1.0/3.9 ± 1.0 for the shoulder, elbow, and forearm sub-category, the wrist and hand sub-category, and the coordination sub-category, respectively) on the FMA-UE (GEE, p < 0.05), as well as their scores on the BBT (pre/post values were 5.9 ± 6.5/9.5 ± 10.1; GEE, p = 0.004) and the AOU (pre/post values were 0.35 ± 0.50/0.48 ± 0.65; GEE, p = 0.02). However, the original TIGER exhibited greater improvements in their performance on the FMA-UE than the participants training with the AAN-equipped TIGER (GEE, p = 0.008). The baseline score for the wrist and hand sub-category of the FMA-UE was clearly the best predictor of TIGER-mediated improvements in hand function during the post-treatment assessment (adjusted R2 = 0.282, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed an AAN-equipped TIGER system and demonstrated its potential effects on improving both the function and activity level of the affected upper extremity of patients with stroke. Nevertheless, its training effects were not found to be advantageous to the original prototype. The baseline score for the FMA-UE sub-category of wrist and hand was the best predictor of improvements in hand function after TIGER rehabilitation. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03713476; date of registration: October19, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03713476.

Proprioceptive Training with Visual Feedback Improves Upper Limb Function in Stroke Patients: A Pilot Study

Proprioceptive deficit is one of the common sensory impairments following stroke and has a negative impact on motor performance. However, evidence-based training procedures and cost-efficient training setups for patients with poststroke are still limited. We compared the effects of proprioceptive training versus nonspecific sensory stimulation on upper limb proprioception and motor function rehabilitation. In this multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 40 participants with poststroke hemiparesis were enrolled from 3 hospitals in China. Participants were assigned randomly to receive proprioceptive training involving passive and active movements with visual feedback (proprioceptive training group [PG]; n = 20) or nonspecific sensory stimulation (control group [CG]; n = 20) 20 times in four weeks. Each session lasted 30 minutes. A clinical assessor blinded to group assignment evaluated patients before and after the intervention. The primary outcome was the change in the motor subscale of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE-M). Secondary outcomes were changes in box and block test (BBT), thumb localization test (TLT), the sensory subscale of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE-S), and Barthel Index (BI). The results showed that the mean change scores of FMA-UE were significantly greater in the PG than in the CG (p = 0.010 for FMA-UE-M, p = 0.033 for FMA-UE-S). The PG group was improved significantly in TLT (p = 0.010) and BBT (p = 0.027), while there was no significant improvement in TLT (p = 0.083) and BBT (p = 0.107) for the CG group. The results showed that proprioceptive training was effective in improving proprioception and motor function of the upper extremity in patients with poststroke. This trial is registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000037808).