Posts Tagged Activities of daily living

[ARTICLE] Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving capacity in activities and arm function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach for improving capacity in activities of daily living (ADL) and upper limb function after stroke. However, it remains unclear what type of tDCS stimulation is most effective. Our aim was to give an overview of the evidence network regarding the efficacy and safety of tDCS and to estimate the effectiveness of the different stimulation types.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of randomised trials using network meta-analysis (NMA), searching the following databases until 5 July 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, and four other databases. We included studies with adult people with stroke. We compared any kind of active tDCS (anodal, cathodal, or dual, that is applying anodal and cathodal tDCS concurrently) regarding improvement of our primary outcome of ADL capacity, versus control, after stroke. PROSPERO ID: CRD42016042055.

Results

We included 26 studies with 754 participants. Our NMA showed evidence of an effect of cathodal tDCS in improving our primary outcome, that of ADL capacity (standardized mean difference, SMD = 0.42; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70). tDCS did not improve our secondary outcome, that of arm function, measured by the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment (FM-UE). There was no difference in safety between tDCS and its control interventions, measured by the number of dropouts and adverse events.

Conclusion

Comparing different forms of tDCS shows that cathodal tDCS is the most promising treatment option to improve ADL capacity in people with stroke.

Background

An emerging approach for enhancing neural plasticity and hence rehabilitation outcomes after stroke is non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). Several stimulation procedures are available, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) [1], transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) [234], transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) [5], and transcranial pulsed ultrasound (TPU) [6]. In recent years a considerable evidence base for NIBS has emerged, especially for rTMS and tDCS.

tDCS is relatively inexpensive, easy to administer and portable, hence constituting an ideal adjuvant therapy during stroke rehabilitation. It works by applying a weak and constant direct current to the brain and has the ability to either enhance or suppress cortical excitability, with effect lasting up to several hours after the stimulation [789]. Hypothetically, this technique makes tDCS a potentially useful tool to modulate neuronal inhibitory and excitatory networks of the affected and the non-affected hemisphere post stroke to enhance, for example, upper limb motor recovery [1011]. Three different stimulation types can be distinguished.

  • In anodal stimulation, the anodal electrode (+) usually is placed over the lesioned brain area and the reference electrode over the contralateral orbit [12]. This leads to subthreshold depolarization, hence promoting neural excitation [3].

  • In cathodal stimulation, the cathode (−) usually is placed over the non-lesioned brain area and the reference electrode over the contralateral orbit [12], leading to subthreshold polarization and hence inhibiting neural activity [3].

  • Dual tDCS means the simultaneous application of anodal and cathodal stimulation [13].

However, the literature does not provide clear guidelines, not only regarding the tDCS type, but also regarding the electrode configuration [14], the amount of current applied and the duration of tDCS, or the question if tDCS should be applied as a standalone therapy or in combination with other treatments, like robot-assisted therapy [15].

Rationale

There is so far conflicting evidence from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of different tDCS approaches after stroke. For example, over the past two decades more than 30 randomised clinical trials have investigated the effects of different tDCS stimulation techniques for stroke, and there are 55 ongoing trials [16]. However, the resulting network of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating different types of tDCS (i.e., anodal, cathodal or dual) as well as their comparators like sham tDCS, physical rehabilitation or pharmacological agents has not yet been analyzed in a systematic review so far.

A network meta-analysis (NMA), also known as multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis or mixed treatment comparison analysis, allows for a quantitative synthesis of the evidence network. This is made possible by combining direct evidence from head-to-head comparisons of three or more interventions within randomised trials with indirect evidence across randomised trials on the basis of a common comparator [17181920]. Network meta-analysis has many advantages over traditional pairwise meta-analysis, such as visualizing and facilitating the interpretation of the wider picture of the evidence and improving understanding of the relative merits of these different types of neuromodulation when compared to sham tDCS and/or another comparator such as exercise therapy and/or pharmacological agents [2122]. By borrowing strength from indirect evidence to gain certainty about all treatment comparisons, network meta-analysis allows comparative effects that have not been investigated directly in randomised clinical trials to be estimated and ranked [2223].

Objective

The aim of our systematic review with NMA was to give an overview of the evidence network of randomised controlled trials of tDCS (anodal, cathodal, or dual) for improving capacity in activities of daily living (ADL) and upper limb function after stroke, as well as its safety, and to estimate and rank the relative effectiveness of the different stimulation types, while taking into account potentially important treatment effect modifiers.

Continue —>  Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving capacity in activities and arm function after stroke: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Full Text

 

Fig. 1 Study flow diagram

Advertisements

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke (Cochrane review) [with consumer summary] – PEDro

BACKGROUND: Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a form of therapy that creates painless stimulation of deep muscle structures to improve motor function in people with physical impairment from brain or nerve disorders. Use of rPMS for people after stroke has been identified as a feasible approach to improve activities of daily living and functional ability. However, no systematic reviews have assessed the findings of available trials. The effect and safety of this intervention for people after stroke currently remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of rPMS for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (August 2016), Medline OVID (November 2016), Embase OVID (August 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) in Ebsco (August 2016), PsycINFO OVID (August 2016), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) OVID (August 2016), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker) (August 2016), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (October 2016), and ICHUSHI Web (October 2016). We also searched five ongoing trial registries, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. Comparisons eligible for inclusion were (1) active rPMS only compared with ‘sham’ rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); (2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; (3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and (4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to ask for unpublished information if necessary. We resolved all disagreements through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (two RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving 121 participants. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported in all trials, and overall risk of bias was low. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; low-quality evidence). Investigators in one study with 63 participants observed no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92). One trial with 18 participants showed that rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44). Another study reported a significant decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.03). No studies provided information on lower limb function and death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the certainty of evidence related to the primary outcome as low owing to the small sample size of one study.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Available trials provided inadequate evidence to permit any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to determine an appropriate rPMS protocol as well as long-term effects. We identified three ongoing trials and will include these trials in the next review update.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

Source: PEDro – Search Detailed Search Results

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Effect of upper extremity coordination exercise during standing on the paretic side on balance, gait ability and activities of daily living in persons with stroke – Full Text PDF

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of upper extremity coordination exercise (UECE) during standing on the paretic side on balance, gait ability and activities of daily living (ADL) in persons with stroke.
Design: A randomized controlled trial.
Methods: A total of 27 patients with hemiplegic diagnosis after stroke were divided into two groups. Fourteen patients were in the study group and 13 patients were in the control group. The study group received conventional physical therapy and UECE during standing on the paretic side. The control group received conventional physical therapy and simple upper extremity exercise (SUEE). Subjects in both groups were given upper extremity training for 30 minutes per day, five times a week for 4 weeks. Initial evaluation was performed before treatment and reevaluated 4 weeks later to compare the changes of balance, gait ability and ADL (Korean version of modified Barthel index, K-MBI).
Results: Both groups showed a significant effect for balance, gait ability and ADL (p<0.05). In the Independent t-test, between both groups showed a significant effect for balance and gait ability except ADL (p<0.05).
Conclusions: In this paper, we investigated the changes in balance, walking, and ADL through UECE. We found significant changes in the study group and the control group. Results of the present study indicated that UECE during standing on the paretic side for 4 weeks had an effect on balance, gait ability and ADL (K-MBI) in persons with hemiplegia after stroke.

Download Full Text PDF

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Exercising daily living activities in robot-mediated therapy – Full Text PDF

Abstract

[Purpose] Investigation of the efficacy of robot-mediated therapy of the upper limb in patients with chronic stroke, in task-oriented training activities of daily living in real environment.

[Subjects and Methods] 20 patients, each more than one year post-stroke (13–71 months) received 20 sessions of upper limb robot-mediated therapy. No other treatment was given. Each therapy session consisted of a passive motion and an active task therapy. During the active therapy, subjects exercised 5 activities of daily living. Assessments of the subjects were blind, and conducted one month prior to, at the start, at the end, and three months after the therapy course. The following outcome measures were recorded: Fugl-Meyer Scale—upper extremity subsection, Modified Ashworth Scale, Action Research Arm Test, Functional Independence Measure, Barthel Index.

[Results] Significant improvements were observed between the start and the end of the therapy, except for Modified Ashworth Scale and Barthel Index. Results still held up at the follow-up visit three months later.

[Conclusion] Practicing activities of daily living in real environment with robot-mediated physical therapy can improve the motor and functional ability of patients, even with relatively good initial functions, and even years post-stroke.

Full Text Pdf

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Conference paper] Upper-Limb Kinematics During Feeding and Drinking – Abstract+References

Abstract

Feeding and drinking are Activities of Daily Living which can be used to assess the motor control and functional ability of the upper limb. This paper presents the upper-limb kinematics during the execution of feeding and drinking activities, such analysis consisted in the measurement of angles of flexion for trunk and arm. Eight healthy subjects performed these activities in a simulated-environment while they were video recorded. Markers on anatomical landmarks were used to analyze the kinematics of the upper limb in the sagittal plane. Additionally an electro-hydraulic sensor was attached to each upper limb to assess the vertical position of the wrist relative to the shoulder. Results showed a difference on the angles of the elbow and trunk. The electro-hydraulic sensor showed to be an efficient way to record the vertical position of wrist.

References

Source: Upper-Limb Kinematics During Feeding and Drinking | SpringerLink

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Perceived ability to perform daily hand activities after stroke and associated factors: a cross-sectional study – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Despite that disability of the upper extremity is common after stroke, there is limited knowledge how it influences self-perceived ability to perform daily hand activities. The aim of this study was to describe which daily hand activities that persons with mild to moderate impairments of the upper extremity after stroke perceive difficult to perform and to evaluate how several potential factors are associated with the self-perceived performance.

Methods

Seventy-five persons (72 % male) with mild to moderate impairments of the upper extremity after stroke (4 to 116 months) participated. Self-perceived ability to perform daily hand activities was rated with the ABILHAND Questionnaire. The perceived ability to perform daily hand activities and the potentially associated factors (age, gender, social and vocational situation, affected hand, upper extremity pain, spasticity, grip strength, somatosensation of the hand, manual dexterity, perceived participation and life satisfaction) were evaluated by linear regression models.

Results

The activities that were perceived difficult or impossible for a majority of the participants were bimanual tasks that required fine manual dexterity of the more affected hand. The factor that had the strongest association with perceived ability to perform daily hand activities was dexterity (p < 0.001), which together with perceived participation (p = 0.002) explained 48 % of the variance in the final multivariate model.

Conclusion

Persons with mild to moderate impairments of the upper extremity after stroke perceive that bimanual activities requiring fine manual dexterity are the most difficult to perform. Dexterity and perceived participation are factors specifically important to consider in the rehabilitation of the upper extremity after stroke in order to improve the ability to use the hands in daily life.

Background

Disability of the upper extremity is common after stroke and almost 50 % of those affected have remaining impairments more than three months post-stroke [1, 2]. The impairments often lead to difficulties in performing daily hand activities [3], especially those that require the use of both hands, i.e., bimanual activities [4]. The ability to perform bimanual activities is therefore an important goal in stroke rehabilitation, regardless of which hand that is affected [5].

The ability to perform daily activities can be objectively assessed by observations of different tasks in a standardized environment or by patient-reported questionnaires. The advantage of using questionnaires is that they often provide a better understanding of an individual’s self-reported everyday difficulties and thereby enable clinicians to design more individually targeted rehabilitation interventions [6]. One questionnaire that is recommended for persons with disability of the upper extremity after stroke is the ABILHAND Questionnaire [4, 7, 8]. It assesses self-perceived ability to perform daily bimanual activities. Previous studies have focused on evaluating the psychometric properties of the ABILHAND [4, 8], but no study has thoroughly described which activities persons in a stable phase post stroke perceive difficult to perform.

In order to improve functioning of the upper extremity after stroke, it is important to understand which factors affect self-perceived ability to perform daily hand activities. Previous studies have shown that single factors, such as motor function, muscle strength, spasticity, somatosensation, dexterity, perceived participation and life satisfaction are moderately to strongly associated with the perceived ability [4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. However, as several factors simultaneously may influence the ability to perform daily hand activities there is a need to understand how these factors are associated with the performance. To the best of our knowledge, only one study [14] has evaluated this association in persons in a stable phase after stroke. In that study by Harris and Eng [14], muscle strength, spasticity, somatosensation and pain were included in multivariate analyses and the authors found that muscle strength in the upper extremity and spasticity were the strongest contributing factors to the perceived ability to use the hands in daily activities. However, dexterity was omitted as a potentially associated factor in the analysis, which was addressed as a limitation of the study. In other studies, gender, dominance of the affected upper extremity, and social and vocational situations have been shown to be important factors for overall functioning after stroke [18, 19, 20, 21]. However, it is unclear how these factors are associated with the self-perceived ability.

Taken together, despite that disability of the upper extremity is common after stroke there is limited knowledge of which daily activities that are perceived difficult to perform and which factors that affect the self-perceived performance. The majority of previous studies have evaluated how single or few factors are associated with perceived daily hand activities. Thus, there is a need for more studies that take several factors into account simultaneously.

The aim of this study was to evaluate a) which daily activities persons with mild to moderate impairments of the upper extremity after stroke perceive difficult to perform and b) how several factors (age, gender, social and vocational situation, affected hand, upper extremity pain, spasticity, grip strength, somatosensation, manual dexterity, perceived participation and life satisfaction) are associated with the self-perceived performance.

Source: Perceived ability to perform daily hand activities after stroke and associated factors: a cross-sectional study | BMC Neurology | Full Text

Fig. 1 Study flowchart

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Stroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

Results

Twenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [−0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD −0.10; CI [−0.59, 0.38], n = 35).

Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.

Conclusions

FES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.

Background

Stroke is defined as a clinical syndrome characterised by rapidly developing focal or global disturbance in cerebral function lasting more than 24 h or leading to death due to a presumed vascular cause [1]. Globally, approximately 16 million people have a stroke each year [2] and in the UK, first-ever stroke affects about 230 people per 100,000 population each year [3]. Stroke represents a cost to the UK economy of approximately £9 billion annually, of which £1.33 billion results from productivity losses [4].

Stroke often leads to significant impairment of upper limb function and is associated with decreased quality of life in all domains except for mobility [5]. Few patients attain complete functional recovery [6]; this deficit impairs performance of activities of daily living (ADL), including self-care and social activities [7, 8]. ADL reflect the level of functional impairment in daily life and are therefore the most clinically relevant outcome measures in assessing recovery after stroke [9].

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) was well established as an intervention for motor rehabilitation. FES is the electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups are stimulated to contract and create/augment a moment about a joint [2]. Transcutaneous electrodes offer the most immediate and clinically viable treatment option as they are non-invasive and may permit home-based treatment.

There are various terms used in the literature to describe different forms of electrical stimulation, often inconsistently. Some authors define FES as electrical stimulation applied to a subject which causes muscle contraction. This passive modality is also referred to as neuromuscular electrical stimulation [10]. Others define FES as electrical stimulation applied during a voluntary movement [4]. This definition acknowledges the volitional component of physical rehabilitation and was used in this systematic review. The distinction is important because neuroimaging studies have identified different cortical mechanisms according to stimulation type [11, 12, 13]. Indeed, perfusion to the ipsilesional sensory-motor cortex and cortical excitability were increased with FES when compared to passive modalities of electrical stimulation [12, 13, 14]. These findings could indicate greater potential for volitional FES to induce neuroplasticity. This is believed to play an important role in neurorehabilitation [15] and is a key objective of post-stroke functional recovery [16].

FES has been widely researched for post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation; several systematic reviews [17, 18, 19] and national guidelines [20, 21] exist. Improvement in upper limb function is central to post-stroke rehabilitation as it positively affects ADL and quality of life [22]. Yet, there is still a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of FES in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation [23] despite systematic reviews having been undertaken [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. In part, this is due to methodological limitations [27, 28] or the outdated nature of some existing reviews [24, 25, 26]. The latter was highlighted by a recent Cochrane overview of reviews calling for an up-to-date review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) related to electrical stimulation [29]. A more recent systematic review found a significant improvement in motor outcomes with upper limb FES [27]. However, this was based on a single meta-analysis that combined ADLs with upper limb-specific measures of functional motor ability, including studies where results were at risk of performance bias (intervention groups receiving greater duration of treatment than control groups) [27]. Another found no improvement in motor function when FES was applied within 6 months of stroke [28]. However, this predominantly included studies that applied electrical stimulation in the absence of volitional muscle contraction, confounding interpretation of the results. This inconsistency is reflected in the 2016 guidelines set by the Royal College of Physicians which recommends FES only in the context of clinical trials as an adjunct to conventional therapy [21].

This systematic review aims to elucidate the effectiveness of upper limb FES compared to standard therapy in improving ADL, in addition to motor outcomes, post-stroke. It represents an important addition to the literature that focuses on the use of volitional FES and, for the first time, distinguishes its effect on clinically relevant patient outcomes from surrogate markers of patient rehabilitation. This includes analyses based on patient sub-groups defined by the time after stroke at which FES was initiated.

Fig. 1 Flow diagram for included studies

Continue —> Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Systematic Review] Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Stroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

Results

Twenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [−0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD −0.10; CI [−0.59, 0.38], n = 35).

Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.

Conclusions

FES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.

Background

Stroke is defined as a clinical syndrome characterised by rapidly developing focal or global disturbance in cerebral function lasting more than 24 h or leading to death due to a presumed vascular cause [1]. Globally, approximately 16 million people have a stroke each year [2] and in the UK, first-ever stroke affects about 230 people per 100,000 population each year [3]. Stroke represents a cost to the UK economy of approximately £9 billion annually, of which £1.33 billion results from productivity losses [4].

Stroke often leads to significant impairment of upper limb function and is associated with decreased quality of life in all domains except for mobility [5]. Few patients attain complete functional recovery [6]; this deficit impairs performance of activities of daily living (ADL), including self-care and social activities [7, 8]. ADL reflect the level of functional impairment in daily life and are therefore the most clinically relevant outcome measures in assessing recovery after stroke [9].

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) was well established as an intervention for motor rehabilitation. FES is the electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups are stimulated to contract and create/augment a moment about a joint [2]. Transcutaneous electrodes offer the most immediate and clinically viable treatment option as they are non-invasive and may permit home-based treatment.

There are various terms used in the literature to describe different forms of electrical stimulation, often inconsistently. Some authors define FES as electrical stimulation applied to a subject which causes muscle contraction. This passive modality is also referred to as neuromuscular electrical stimulation [10]. Others define FES as electrical stimulation applied during a voluntary movement [4]. This definition acknowledges the volitional component of physical rehabilitation and was used in this systematic review. The distinction is important because neuroimaging studies have identified different cortical mechanisms according to stimulation type [11, 12, 13]. Indeed, perfusion to the ipsilesional sensory-motor cortex and cortical excitability were increased with FES when compared to passive modalities of electrical stimulation [12, 13, 14]. These findings could indicate greater potential for volitional FES to induce neuroplasticity. This is believed to play an important role in neurorehabilitation [15] and is a key objective of post-stroke functional recovery [16].

FES has been widely researched for post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation; several systematic reviews [17, 18, 19] and national guidelines [20, 21] exist. Improvement in upper limb function is central to post-stroke rehabilitation as it positively affects ADL and quality of life [22]. Yet, there is still a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of FES in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation [23] despite systematic reviews having been undertaken [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. In part, this is due to methodological limitations [27, 28] or the outdated nature of some existing reviews [24, 25, 26]. The latter was highlighted by a recent Cochrane overview of reviews calling for an up-to-date review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) related to electrical stimulation [29]. A more recent systematic review found a significant improvement in motor outcomes with upper limb FES [27]. However, this was based on a single meta-analysis that combined ADLs with upper limb-specific measures of functional motor ability, including studies where results were at risk of performance bias (intervention groups receiving greater duration of treatment than control groups) [27]. Another found no improvement in motor function when FES was applied within 6 months of stroke [28]. However, this predominantly included studies that applied electrical stimulation in the absence of volitional muscle contraction, confounding interpretation of the results. This inconsistency is reflected in the 2016 guidelines set by the Royal College of Physicians which recommends FES only in the context of clinical trials as an adjunct to conventional therapy [21].

This systematic review aims to elucidate the effectiveness of upper limb FES compared to standard therapy in improving ADL, in addition to motor outcomes, post-stroke. It represents an important addition to the literature that focuses on the use of volitional FES and, for the first time, distinguishes its effect on clinically relevant patient outcomes from surrogate markers of patient rehabilitation. This includes analyses based on patient sub-groups defined by the time after stroke at which FES was initiated.

Continue —> Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text

Fig. 1 Flow diagram for included studies

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Functional range of motion of the hand joints in activities of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

Abstract

Study Design

Cross-sectional research design.

Introduction

Active range of motion (AROM) is used as indicator of hand function. However, functional range of motion (FROM) data are limited, and fail to represent activities of daily living (ADL).

Purpose of the Study

To estimate dominant hand FROM in flexion, abduction and palmar arching in people under 50 years of age performing ADL.

Methods

AROMs and hand postures in 24 representative ADL of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) were recorded in 12 men and 12 women. FROM data were reported by activity and ICF area, and compared with AROMs. The relationship between ROM measures to gender and hand size was analyzed by correlation.

Results

FROM was 5° to 28° less than available AROM depending on the joint and movement performed.

Discussion

Joints do not necessarily move through full AROM while performing ADL which has benefits in retaining function despite loss of motion. This may also suggest that ADL alone are insufficient to retain or restore full AROM.

Conclusions

Therapists should consider FROM requirements and normal AROM when defining hand therapy goals, interventions and evaluating the success of treatment.

Source: Functional range of motion of the hand joints in activities of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health – Journal of Hand Therapy

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: