[Abstract + References] Gains Across WHO Dimensions of Function After Robot-Based Therapy in Stroke Subjects

Abstract

Background

Studies examining the effects of therapeutic interventions after stroke often focus on changes in loss of body function/structure (impairment). However, improvements in activities limitations and participation restriction are often higher patient priorities, and the relationship that these measures have with loss of body function/structure is unclear.

Objective

This study measured gains across WHO International Classification of Function (ICF) dimensions and examined their interrelationships.

Methods

Subjects were recruited 11 to 26 weeks after hemiparetic stroke. Over a 3-week period, subjects received 12 sessions of intensive robot-based therapy targeting the distal arm. Each subject was assessed at baseline and at 1 month after end of therapy.

Results

At baseline, subjects (n = 40) were 134.7 ± 32.4 (mean ± SD) days poststroke and had moderate-severe arm motor deficits (arm motor Fugl-Meyer score of 35.6 ± 14.4) that were stable. Subjects averaged 2579 thumb movements and 1298 wrist movements per treatment session. After robot therapy, there was significant improvement in measures of body function/structure (Fugl-Meyer score) and activity limitations (Action Research Arm Test, Barthel Index, and Stroke Impact Scale–Hand), but not participation restriction (Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale). Furthermore, while the degree of improvement in loss of body function/structure was correlated with improvement in activity limitations, neither improvement in loss of body function/structure nor improvement in activity limitations was correlated with change in participation restriction.

Conclusions

After a 3-week course of robotic therapy, there was improvement in body function/structure and activity limitations but no reduction in participation restriction.

References

1.	Winstein, CJ, Stein, J, Arena, R, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47:e98-e169. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
2.	Nichols-Larsen, DS, Clark, PC, Zeringue, A, Greenspan, A, Blanton, S. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36:1480-1484. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
3.	Wolf, SL, Winstein, CJ, Miller, JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2095-2104. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
4.	Lo, AC, Guarino, PD, Richards, LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1772-1783. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
5.	Takahashi, CD, Der-Yeghiaian, L, Le, V, Motiwala, RR, Cramer, SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain. 2008;131(pt 2):425-437. Google Scholar | Medline
6.	Kus, S, van de Ven-Stevens, LA, Coenen, M, Berno, S, Kollerits, B, Cieza, A. What is our knowledge of functioning and disability in hand conditions based on? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1326-1332. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
7.	Langhorne, P, Bernhardt, J, Kwakkel, G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377:1693-1702. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
8.	McDougall, J, Wright, V, Rosenbaum, P. The ICF model of functioning and disability: incorporating quality of life and human development. Dev Neurorehabil. 2010;13:204-211. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
9.	World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) . Published 2018. Updated March 2, 2018. Accessed July 21, 2020. https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ Google Scholar
10.	Barak, S, Duncan, PW. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx. 2006;3:505-524. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
11.	Duncan, PW, Jorgensen, HS, Wade, DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke. 2000;31:1429-1438. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
12.	Burridge, JH, Turk, R, Notley, SV, Pickering, RM, Simpson, DM. The relationship between upper limb activity and impairment in post-stroke hemiplegia. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:109-117. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
13.	Gadidi, V, Katz-Leurer, M, Carmeli, E, Bornstein, NM. Long-term outcome poststroke: predictors of activity limitation and participation restriction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1802-1808. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
14.	Quinn, TJ, Dawson, J, Walters, MR, Lees, KR. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke. 2009;4:200-205. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
15.	Lewthwaite, R, Winstein, CJ, Lane, CJ, et al. Accelerating stroke recovery: body structures and functions, activities, participation, and quality of life outcomes from a large rehabilitation trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018;32:150-165. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
16.	Winstein, CJ, Wolf, SL, Dromerick, AW, et al. Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke: the ICARE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;315:571-581. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
17.	Mehrholz, J, Pohl, M, Platz, T, Kugler, J, Elsner, B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9(9):CD006876. Google Scholar | Medline
18.	Gladstone, DJ, Danells, CJ, Black, SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16:232-240. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
19.	See, J, Dodakian, L, Chou, C, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:732-741. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
20.	Kitago, T, Liang, J, Huang, VS, et al. Improvement after constraint-induced movement therapy: recovery of normal motor control or task-specific compensation? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:99-109. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
21.	Stewart, JC, Cramer, SC. Patient-reported measures provide unique insights into motor function after stroke. Stroke. 2013;44:1111-1116. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
22.	Shelton, FD, Volpe, BT, Reding, M. Motor impairment as a predictor of functional recovery and guide to rehabilitation treatment after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15: 229-237. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
23.	Roth, EJ, Heinemann, AW, Lovell, LL, Harvey, RL, McGuire, JR, Diaz, S. Impairment and disability: their relation during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:329-335. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
24.	Burke Quinlan, E, Dodakian, L, See, J, et al. Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann Neurol. 2015;77:132-145. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
25.	Passingham, RE. The Frontal Lobes and Voluntary Action. Oxford University Press; 1993. Google Scholar
26.	Dodakian, L, Sharp, KG, See, J, et al. Targeted engagement of a dorsal premotor circuit in the treatment of post-stroke paresis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33:13-24. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
27.	Lang, CE, Wagner, JM, Dromerick, AW, Edwards, DF. Measurement of upper-extremity function early after stroke: properties of the action research arm test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1605-1610. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
28.	Moore, JL, Raad, J, Ehrlich-Jones, L, Heinemann, AW. Development and use of a knowledge translation tool: the rehabilitation measures database. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:197-202. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
29.	Quinn, TJ, Langhorne, P, Stott, DJ. Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42:1146-1151. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
30.	Duncan, PW, Wallace, D, Lai, SM, Johnson, D, Embretson, S, Laster, LJ. The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131-2140. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
31.	Lin, KC, Fu, T, Wu, CY, Hsieh, YW, Chen, CL, Lee, PC. Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:435-443. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
32.	Williams, LS, Weinberger, M, Harris, LE, Clark, DO, Biller, J. Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke. 1999;30:1362-1369. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
33.	Wyller, TB, Sveen, U, Sodring, KM, Pettersen, AM, Bautz-Holter, E. Subjective well-being one year after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 1997;11:139-145. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
34.	van der Lee, J, Beckerman, H, Lankhorst, G, Bouter, L. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:110-113. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
35.	Ahmed, S, Mayo, NE, Higgins, J, Salbach, NM, Finch, L, Wood-Dauphinee, SL. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): a comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003;83:617-630. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI
36.	Ward, I, Pivko, S, Brooks, G, Parkin, K. Validity of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement scale in acute rehabilitation: a comparison with the functional independence measure and stroke impact scale-16. PM R. 2011;3:1013-1021. Google Scholar | Medline
37.	Kwakkel, G, Wagenaar, RC, Twisk, JW, Lankhorst, GJ, Koetsier, JC. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354:191-196. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
38.	Lang, CE, Strube, MJ, Bland, MD, et al. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016;80:342-354. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
39.	King, RB. Quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 1996;27:1467-1472. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
40.	De Haan, R, Horn, J, Limburg, M, Van Der Meulen, J, Bossuyt, P. A comparison of five stroke scales with measures of disability, handicap, and quality of life. Stroke. 1993;24:1178-1181. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
41.	Jonsson, AC, Lindgren, I, Hallstrom, B, Norrving, B, Lindgren, A. Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors and their informal caregivers. Stroke. 2005;36:803-808. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
42.	Wolf, SL, Winstein, CJ, Miller, JP, et al. Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:33-40. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
43.	Lum, P, Reinkensmeyer, D, Mahoney, R, Rymer, WZ, Burgar, C. Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: current status and challenges to clinical acceptance. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002;8:40-53. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
44.	Kwakkel, G, Kollen, BJ, Krebs, HI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:111-121. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
45.	Lang, CE, Macdonald, JR, Reisman, DS, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1692-1698. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
46.	Birkenmeier, RL, Prager, EM, Lang, CE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:620-635. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
47.	Peurala, SH, Kantanen, MP, Sjogren, T, Paltamaa, J, Karhula, M, Heinonen, A. Effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy on activity and participation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26:209-223. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
48.	Jeffers, MS, Karthikeyan, S, Gomez-Smith, M, et al. Does stroke rehabilitation really matter? Part B: an algorithm for prescribing an effective intensity of rehabilitation. Neurorehab Neural Repair. 2018;32:73-83. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
49.	Plautz, E, Milliken, G, Nudo, R. Effects of repetitive motor training on movement representations in adult squirrel monkeys: role of use versus learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2000;74:27-55. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
50.	Brox, E, Fernandez-Luque, L, Tøllefsen, T. Healthy gaming—video game design to promote health. Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2:128-142. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
51.	Thompson, D, Baranowski, T, Buday, R, et al. Serious video games for health how behavioral science guided the development of a serious video game. Simul Gaming. 2010;41:587-606. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
52.	Parker, SG . Health games research: advancing effectiveness of interactive games for health. Published September 18, 2015. Accessed July 21, 2020. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/03/advancing-the-field-of-health-games.html Google Scholar
53.	Przybylski, A, Rigby, C, Ryan, R. A motivational model of video game engagement. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14:154-166. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
54.	Dennis, A, Bosnell, R, Dawes, H, et al. Cognitive context determines dorsal premotor cortical activity during hand movement in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2011;42:1056-1061. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
55.	Dodakian, L, Campbell Stewart, J, Cramer, SC. Motor imagery during movement activates the brain more than movement alone after stroke: a pilot study. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46:843-848. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
56.	Roth, EJ, Lovell, L. Community skill performance and its association with the ability to perform everyday tasks by stroke survivors one year following rehabilitation discharge. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14:48-56. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
57.	Salter, KL, Foley, NC, Jutai, JW, Teasell, RW. Assessment of participation outcomes in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation interventions. Int J Rehabil Res. 2007;30:339-342. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
58.	Nakayama, H, Jorgensen, HS, Raaschou, HO, Olsen, TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75: 394-398. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
59.	Davis, AM, Perruccio, AV, Ibrahim, S, et al. The trajectory of recovery and the inter-relationships of symptoms, activity and participation in the first year following total hip and knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19:1413-1421. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
60.	Hsueh, IP, Jeng, JS, Lee, Y, Sheu, CF, Hsieh, CL. Construct validity of the stroke-specific quality of life questionnaire in ischemic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1113-1118. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
61.	Kerber, KA, Brown, DL, Skolarus, LE, et al. Validation of the 12-item stroke-specific quality of life scale in a biethnic stroke population. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;22:1270-1272. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
62.	Mao, HF, Hsueh, IP, Tang, PF, Sheu, CF, Hsieh, CL. Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke. 2002;33:1022-1027. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
63.	Lin, DJ, Finklestein, SP, Cramer, SC. New directions in treatments targeting stroke recovery. Stroke. 2018;49:3107-3114. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
64.	Salter, K, Jutai, JW, Teasell, R, Foley, NC, Bitensky, J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:191-207. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Source

[ARTICLE] Postoperative seizure outcome and timing interval to start antiepileptic drug withdrawal: A retrospective observational study of non-neoplastic drug resistant epilepsy – Full Text

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the impact of timing interval to start AED withdraw (TIW) after surgery on the seizure outcome in non-neoplastic drug resistant epilepsy (DRE). TIW were divided into three groups (respectively,<1 year, 1-<2 years, and ≥2 years). The seizure outcome at the different time points after starting AED withdrawal were compared among three groups. Other factors that related to seizure recurrence and TIW were included into the multiple analysis to investigate the predictors of seizure-free. Altogether, 205 patients were involved in the study. 102 individuals (50%) had seizure recurrence and 127 (62%) had seizure-free at the final follow up. 115 of them have attempted AED reduction and had not seizure recurrence before AED reduction. The rate of seizure-free had no significant difference among people with different TIW. Multiple analysis indicated that temporal surgery is a favorable predictor of seizure-free at the first year after starting AED withdrawal, and preoperative secondary generalized seizures is an unfavorable predictor of seizure-free at the final follow up. In patients with non-neoplastic DRE, TIW is not the mainly influence factor on seizure outcome, however, preoperative secondary generalized seizures and extra-temporal surgery are negatively associated with seizure-free.

Introduction

Surgery is an effective treatment for patients with drug resistant epilepsy (DRE), and previous studies indicated that among people with poorly controlled epilepsy, patients who underwent surgery often had better control of seizure than those with medical therapy^1,2,3,4. In these studies, surgery was proved to be of great benefit to patients with DRE either seizure freedom or quality of life.

In order to reduce the risk of seizure recurrence, patient with DRE frequently were recommended to continue to take AED until seizure free for two years after surgery⁵. However, the ideal outcome of surgery for epilepsy is to discontinue antiepileptic drugs (AED) without any seizure attack⁶. As early AED withdrawal at no cost of seizure outcome not only reduce the financial burden of patients but also is beneficial to neurodevelopment^7,8, some other researchers put forward to start AED reduction before 2 years after surgery with completed seizure control⁹. Nevertheless, as for optimum timing to taper AED after surgery, survey of epileptologists showed that the duration for AED treatment after surgery were wildly different, ranging from less than one year to more than two years and no standardized guidelines exist^10,11,12. How to find the suitable time point of AED withdrawal is difficult and controversial.

In previous studies, results about the time of AED withdrawal and seizure outcome are conflict. Some studies indicated that early reduction of AED increase the risk of relapse and is associated to lower rate of seizure free^13,14, however, other studies showed that early AED withdrawal was not associated with seizure recurrence and had no affection on long-term seizure outcome^15,16,17. Therefore, time point of withdrawing AED is a controversial but meaningful issue. However, most of previous studies included individuals with various pathological result, including tumor, which often had poorer outcome than those with non-tumor-associated epilepsy¹⁸, and few study specially focused on non-neoplastic DRE. This study aimed to assess the association between different time point of starting AED withdrawal and seizure outcome after epilepsy surgery in patients with non-neoplastic DRE.[…]

Continue —> Postoperative seizure outcome and timing interval to start antiepileptic drug withdrawal: A retrospective observational study of non-neoplastic drug resistant epilepsy | Scientific Reports

[Oral Presentation] Center for Large Data Research and Data Sharing in Rehabilitation – Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

The goal of the presentation is to provide information to the rehabilitation research community regarding the activities, programs and services offered by The Center for Large Data Research and Data Sharing in Rehabilitation.

Source: Center for Large Data Research and Data Sharing in Rehabilitation – Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation