Posts Tagged range of motion.

[Abstract+References] Finite element analysis of the wrist in stroke patients: the effects of hand grip.

Abstract

The provision of the most suitable rehabilitation treatment for stroke patient remains an ongoing challenge for clinicians. Fully understanding the pathomechanics of the upper limb will allow doctors to assist patients with physiotherapy treatment that will aid in full arm recovery. A biomechanical study was therefore conducted using the finite element (FE) method. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the human wrist was reconstructed using computed tomography (CT)-scanned images. A stroke model was constructed based on pathological problems, i.e. bone density reductions, cartilage wane, and spasticity. The cartilages were reconstructed as per the articulation shapes in the joint, while the ligaments were modelled using linear links. The hand grip condition was mimicked, and the resulting biomechanical characteristics of the stroke and healthy models were compared. Due to the lower thickness of the cartilages, the stroke model reported a higher contact pressure (305 MPa), specifically at the MC1-trapezium. Contrarily, a healthy model reported a contact pressure of 228 MPa. In the context of wrist extension and displacement, the stroke model (0.68° and 5.54 mm, respectively) reported a lower magnitude than the healthy model (0.98° and 9.43 mm, respectively), which agrees with previously reported works. It was therefore concluded that clinicians should take extra care in rehabilitation treatment of wrist movement in order to prevent the occurrence of other complications.

Graphical abstract

References

  1. 1.
    Ada L, O’Dwyer N, O’Neill E (2006) Relation between spasticity, weakness and contracture of the elbow flexors and upper limb activity after stroke: an observational study. Disabil Rehabil 28(13-14):891–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500535165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aprile I., Rabuffetti M, Padua L, DI Sipio E, Simbolotti C, Ferrarin M (2014) Kinematic analysis of the upper limb motor strategies in stroke patients as a tool towards advanced neurorehabilitation strategies: a preliminary study. Biomed Res IntGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arya KN, Pandian S, Verma R, Garg RK (2011) Movement therapy induced neural reorganization and motor recovery in stroke: a review. J Bodyw Mov Ther 15(4):528–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.01.023CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bajuri MN, Abdul Kadir MR, Raman MM, Kamarul T (2012) Mechanical and functional assessment of the wrist affected by rheumatoid arthritis: a finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 34(9):1294–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.12.020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bajuri MN, Abdul Kadir MR, Yahya MY (2011) Biomechanical analysis on the effect of bone graft of the wrist after arhroplasty. IFMBE Proc 35:773–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21729-6_189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beebe JA, Lang CE (2009) Active range of motion predicts upper extremity function 3 months after stroke. Stroke 40(5):1772–1779. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.536763CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bettinger PC, Smutz WP, Linscheid RL, Cooney WP, An KN (2000) Material properties of the trapezial and trapeziometacarpal ligaments. J Hand Surg 25(6):1085–1095. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2000.18487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boissy P, Bournonnais D, Carlotti MM, Gravel D, Arsenault BA (1999) Maximal grip force in chronic stroke subjects and its relationship to global upper extremity function. Clin Rehabil 13(4):354–362. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921599676433080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bosisio MR, Talmant M, Skalli W, Laugier P, Mitton D (2007) Apparent Young’s modulus of human radius using inverse finite element method. J Biomech 9:2022–2028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown CP, Nguyen TC, Moody HR, Crawford RW, Oloyede A (2009) Assessment of common hyperelastic constitutive equations for describing normal and osteoarthritis articular cartilage. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 6:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buma F, Kwakkel G, Ramsey N (2013) Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 31:707–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carrigan SD, Whiteside RA, Pichora DR, Small CF (2003) Development of a three-dimensional finite element model for carpal load transmission in a static neutral posture. Ann Biomed Eng 31(6):718–725. https://doi.org/10.1114/1.1574027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen X, Zhou L, Zhang Y, Yi D, Liu L, Rao W, Wu Y, Ma D, Liu X, Zhou X-HA, Lin H, Cheng D, Yi D (2014) Risk factors of stroke in Western and Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMC Public Health 14:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng H-YK, Lin C-L, Lin Y-H, Chen AC (2007) Biomechanical evaluation of the modified double-plating fixation for the distal radius fracture. Clin Biomech 22(5):510–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chuang L-L, Wu C-Y, Lin K-C, Lur S-Y (2012) Quantitative mechanical properties of the relaxed biceps and triceps brachii muscles in patients with subacute stroke: a reliability study of the myoton-3 myometer. Stroke Res Treat 2012:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/617694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coburn JC, Upal MA, Crisco JJ (2007) Coordinate systems for the carpal bones of the wrist. J Biomech 40(1):203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.11.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dennis MS, Lo KM, McDowall M, West T (2002) Fractures after stroke. Frequency, types and associations. Stroke 33(3):728–734. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs0302.103621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietz V, Berger W (1984) Interlimb coordination of posture in patients with spastic hemiparesis. Brain 107(3):965–978. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/107.3.965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ezquerro F, Jimenez S, Perez A, Prado M, de Diego G, Simon A (2007) The influence of wire positioning upon the initial stability of scaphoid fractures fixed using Kirschner wires: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys 29(6):652–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2006.08.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Finlay JB, Repo RU (1979) Energy absorbing ability of articular cartilage during impact. Med Biol Eng Comput 17(3):397–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02443830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fischli S, Sellens RW, Beek M, Pichora DR (2009) Simulation of extension, radial and ulnar deviation of the wrist with a rigid body spring model. J Biomech 224:477–485Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gislason MK, Nash DH, Nicol A, Kanellopoulus A, Bransby-Zachary M, Hems T, Condon B, Stansfield B (2009) A three dimensional finite element model of maximal grip loading in the human wrist. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 7:849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gislason MK, Nash DH, Stansfield B (2010) Finite element model creation and stability considerations of complex biological articulation. Med Eng Phys 32(5):523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2010.02.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Givissis PK, Antonarakos P, Vafiades VE, Christodoulus AG (2009) Management of posstraumatic arthritis of the wrist with radiolunate fusion enhanced with a sliding autograft: a case report and description of a novel technique. Tech Hand Upper Extrem Surg 13(2):90–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/BTH.0b013e3181960675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gopura RARC, Bandara DSV, Kiguchi K, Mann GKI (2016) Developments in hardware systems of active upper-limb exoskeleton robots: a review. Robot Auton Syst 75:203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guo S, Zhang F, Wei W, Guo J, Ge W (2013) Development of force analysis-based exoskeleton for the upper limb rehabilitation system. Proc IEEE:285–289Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guo X, Fan Y, Li Z-M (2009) Effects of dividing the transverse carpal ligament on the mechanical behavior of the carpal bones under axial compressive load: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys 2:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heller A, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Hewer RL, Ward E (1987) Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 50(6):714–719. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.50.6.714CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    James CB, Uhl TL (2001) A review of articular cartilage pathology and the use of glucosamine sulfate. J Athl Train 36(4):413–419PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jorgensen L, Engstad T, Jacobsen BK (2001) Bone mineral density in acute stroke patients. Stroke 32(1):47–51. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.32.1.47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kamper DG, Schmit BD, Rymer WZ (2001) Effect of muscle biomechanics on the quantification of spasticity. Ann Biomed Eng 29(12):1122–1134. https://doi.org/10.1114/1.1424918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kerin AJ, Wisnom MR, Adams MA (1998) The compressive strength of articular cartilage. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 4:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim K, Park D-S, Ko B-Y, Lee J, Yang S-N, Kim J, Song W-K (2011) Arm motion analysis of stroke patients in activities of daily living tasks: a preliminary study. IEEE. Exp Dermatol:1287–1291Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krishna KR, Sridhar I, Ghista DN (2008) Analysis of the helical plate for bone fracture fixation. Injury 39(12):1421–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2008.04.013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kumar TS, Pandyan AD, Sharma AK (2006) Biomechanical measurement of post-stroke spasticity. Age Ageing 35(4):371–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afj084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lang CE, Beebe JA (2007) Relating movement control at 9 upper extremity segments to loss of hand function in people with chronic hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21(3):279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968306296964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lazoura O, Groumas N, Antoniadou E, Papadaki PJ, Papadimitriou A, Thriskos P, Fezoulidis I, Vlychou M (2008) Bone mineral density alterations in upper and lower extremities 12 months after stroke measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography and DXA. J Clin Densitom Assess Skeletal Health 11(4):511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2008.05.097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li C, Zhou Y, Wang H, Liu J, Xiang L (2014) Treatment of unstable thoracolumbar fractures through short segment pedicle screw fixation techniques using pedicle fixation at the level of the fracture: a finite element analysis. PLoS One 9(6):e99156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099156CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li Z, Kim JE, Davidson JS, Etheridge BS, Alonso JE, Eberhardt AW (2007) Biomechanical response of the pubic symphysis in lateral pelvic impacts: a finite element study. J Biomech 12:2758–2766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lo HS, Xie SQ (2012) Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 34(3):261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.10.004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Kenney DE, Van der Loos HFM (1999) Quantification of force abnormalities during passive and active-assisted upper-limb reaching movements in post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46(6):652–662. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.764942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    M.H. R, Abdul Kadir MR, Murali MR, Kamarul T (2014) Finite element analysis of three commonly used external fixation devices for treating type III pilon fractures. Med Eng Phys 36(10):1322–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Macleod N.A., Nash DH, Stansfield BW, Bransby-Zachary M, Hems T (2007) Cadaveric analysis of the wrist and forearm load distribution for finite element validation. In: Sixth International Hand and Wrist Biomechanics Symposium, Tainan, Taiwan, Republic of ChinaGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Magermans DJ, Chadwick EKJ, Veeger HEJ, van der Helm FCT (2005) Requirement for upper extremity motions during activities of daily living. Clin Biomech 20(6):591–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Materialise (2008) Mimics help manual, vol Version 12.1. MaterialiseGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McGrouther DA. Interactive Hand-Anatomy CD. 1.0 edn. Prima PicturesGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mirbagheri MM, Settle K, Harvey R, Rymer WZ (2007) Neuromuscular abnormalities associated with spasticity of upper extremity muscles in hemiparetic stroke. J Neurophysiol 98(2):629–637. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00049.2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mirbagheri MM, Tsao C, Rymer WZ (2009) Natural history of neuromuscular properties after stroke: a longitudinal study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 80(11):1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2008.155739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mirbagheri MM, Tsao C, Settle K, Lilaonitkul T, Rymer WZ (2008) Time course of changes in neuromuscular properties following stroke. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 1:5097–5100Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nascimento LR, Polese JC, Faria CDCM, Teixeira-Salmela LF (2012) Isometric hand grip strength correlated with isokinetic data of the shoulder stabilizers in individuals with chronic stroke. J Bodyw Mov Ther 16(3):275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2012.01.002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Netter FH (2003) Atlas of human anatomy, 3rd edn. ICON Learning System, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Olney SJ, Richards C (1996) Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part I. Charact Gait Posture 4:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Opheim A, Danielsson A, Murphy MA, Persson HC, Sunnerhagen KS (2014) Upper-limb spasticity during the first year after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 93(10):884–896. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Patterson RM, Viegas SF, Elder K, Buford WL (1995) Quantification of anatomic, geometric, and load transfer characteristics of the wrist joint. Semin Arthroplast 6:13–19Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Poli P, Morone G, Rosati G, Masiero S (2013) Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: new tools for stroke patient’s therapy. Biomed Res Int 2013:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/153872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Powers RK, Marder-Meyer J, Rymer WZ (1988) Quantitative relations between hypertonia and strecth reflex threshold in spastic hemiparesis. Ann Neurol 23(2):115–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410230203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ramlee MH, Abdul Kadir MR, Harun H (2014) Three-dimensional modelling and finite element analysis of an ankle external fixator. Adv Mater Res 845:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ramlee MH, Abdul Kadir MR, Murali MR, Kamarul T (2014) Biomechanical evaluation of two commonly used external fixators in the treatment of open subtalar dislocation—a finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 36(10):1358–1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.07.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ramlee MH, Beng GK (2017) Function and biomechanics of upper limb in post-stroke patients—a systematic review. J Mech Med Biol 0(06):1750099. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219519417500993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sato Y (2000) Abnormal bone and calcium metabolism in patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(1):117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90231-4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sato Y, Fujimatsu Y, Kikuyama M, Kaji M, Oizumi K (1998) Influence of immobilization on bone mass and bone metabolism in hemiplegic elderly patients with a ling-standing stroke. J Neurol Sci 156(2):205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-510X(98)00041-0CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Savelberg HH, Kooloos JG, Huiskes R, Kauer JM (1992) Stiffness of the ligaments of the human wrist joints. J Biomech 25(4):369–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(92)90256-ZCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schuind F, Cooney WP, Linscheid RL, An KN, Chao EY (1995) Force and pressure transmission through the normal wrist. A theoretical two-dimensional study in the posteroanterior plane. J Biomech 28(5):587–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(94)00093-JCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Starsky AJ, Sangani SG, McGuire JR, Logan B, Schmit BD (2005) Reliability of biomechanical spasticity measurements at the elbow of people poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86(8):1648–1654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sunderland A, Tinson D, Bradley L, Langton H (1989) Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 52(11):1267–1272. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.52.11.1267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tao K, Wang D, Wang C, Wang X, Liu A, Nester CJ, Howard D (2009) An in vivo experimental validation of a computational model of human foot. J Bionic Eng 6(4):387–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6529(08)60138-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tunc H, Oken O, Kara M, Tiftik T, Dogu B, Unlu Z, Ozcakar L (2012) Ultrasonographic measurement of the femoral cartilage thickness in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 35(3):203–207. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283532736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Warlow C, van Gijn J, Dennis M, Wardlaw J, Bamford J, Hankey G, Sandercock P, Rinkel G, Langhorne P, Sudlow C, Rothwell P (2008) Stroke: practical management. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wasay W, Khatri IA, Kaul S (2014) Stroke in South Asian countries. Nat Rev Neurol 10(3):135–143. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wei W, Guo S, Zhang F, Guo J, Ji Y, Wang Y (2013) A novel upper limb rehabilitation system with hand exoskeleton mechanism. Proc IEEE:285–290Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Welmer AK, Widen HL, Sommerfeld DK (2010) Location and severity of spasticity in the first 1-2 weeks and at 3 and 18 months after stroke. Eur J Neurol 17(5):720–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02915.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wong DW-C, Niu W, Zhang M (2016) Finite element analysis of foot and ankle impact injury: risk evaluation of calcaneus and talus fracture. PLoS One 11(4):e0154435. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yalcin S, Kara M, Ozturk GT, Ozcakar L (2016) Ultrasonographic measurements of the metacarpal and talar cartilage thicknesses in hemiplegic patients after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 9:1–4Google Scholar

via Finite element analysis of the wrist in stroke patients: the effects of hand grip | SpringerLink

Advertisements

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Immediate Effects of Mirror Therapy in Patients With Shoulder Pain and Decreased Range of Motion 

Abstract

Objective

To determine the effects of a brief single component of the graded motor imagery (GMI) sequence (mirror therapy) on active range of motion (AROM), pain, fear avoidance, and pain catastrophization in patients with shoulder pain.

Design

Single-blind case series.

Setting

Three outpatient physical therapy clinics.

Participants

Patients with shoulder pain and limited AROM (N=69).

Intervention

Patients moved their unaffected shoulder through comfortable AROM in front of a mirror so that it appeared that they were moving their affected shoulder.

Main Outcome Measures

We measured pain, pain catastrophization, fear avoidance, and AROM in 69 consecutive patients with shoulder pain and limited AROM before and immediately after mirror therapy.

Results

There were significant differences in self-reported pain (P=.014), pain catastrophization (P<.001), and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (P=.012) immediately after mirror therapy; however, the means did not meet or exceed the minimal detectable change (MDC) for each outcome measure. There was a significant increase (mean, 14.5°) in affected shoulder flexion AROM immediately postmirror therapy (P<.001), which exceeded the MDC of 8°.

Conclusions

A brief mirror therapy intervention can result in statistically significant improvements in pain, pain catastrophization, fear avoidance, and shoulder flexion AROM in patients presenting with shoulder pain with limited AROM. The immediate changes may allow a quicker transition to multimodal treatment, including manual therapy and exercise in these patients. Further studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to investigate these findings and determine longer-term effects.

Source: Immediate Effects of Mirror Therapy in Patients With Shoulder Pain and Decreased Range of Motion – Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] The Use of Functional Electrical Stimulation on the Upper Limb and Interscapular Muscles of Patients with Stroke for the Improvement of Reaching Movements: A Feasibility Study

Introduction: Reaching movements in stroke patients are characterized by decreased amplitudes at the shoulder and elbow joints and greater displacements of the trunk, compared to healthy subjects. The importance of an appropriate and specific contraction of the interscapular and upper limb (UL) muscles is crucial to achieving proper reaching movements. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is used to activate the paretic muscles using short-duration electrical pulses.

Objective: To evaluate whether the application of FES in the UL and interscapular muscles of stroke patients with motor impairments of the UL modifies patients’ reaching patterns, measured using instrumental movement analysis systems.

Design: A cross-sectional study was carried out.

Setting: The VICON Motion System® was used to conduct motion analysis.

Participants: Twenty-one patients with chronic stroke.

Intervention: The Compex® electric stimulator was used to provide muscle stimulation during two conditions: a placebo condition and a FES condition.

Main outcome measures: We analyzed the joint kinematics (trunk, shoulder, and elbow) from the starting position until the affected hand reached the glass.

Results: Participants receiving FES carried out the movement with less trunk flexion, while shoulder flexion elbow extension was increased, compared to placebo conditions.

Conclusion: The application of FES to the UL and interscapular muscles of stroke patients with motor impairment of the UL has improved reaching movements.

Introduction

Reaching movements in stroke patients are characterized by decreased amplitudes at the shoulder and elbow joints compared to healthy subjects (16). The movement pattern of patients with stroke is highly related to their level of motor function impairment, which becomes modified due to the lack of inter-articular coordination (1). There is a decrease in the range of motion at the elbow joint with a tendency toward flexion, which avoids correct extension of the upper limb (UL), hampering the ability to perform appropriate reaching movements. Excessive shoulder abduction is also observed as a compensatory movement when there is a lack of appropriate shoulder flexion (7).

In the case of the trunk, greater trunk displacements have been observed in patients with stroke, forward displacements, and torsion movements, which are related to deficits in elbow extension, and shoulder flexion and adduction, as compensatory mechanisms that occur during reaching movements or other activity. Patients are able to develop new motor strategies to achieve their goal despite UL deficits (17). There is a greater involvement of the trunk and scapula during the execution of reaching movements due to the creation of new movement strategies to compensate for the deficiencies (8).

The scientific literature has shown that stroke patients need to create new movement strategies. This involves the development of pathological synergies to carry out the desired movements. An example of this is the excessive movements of the trunk and scapula to compensate the deficiencies resulting from the pathology (7). Proper activation of the interscapular muscles depends on the position of the trunk. Stroke patients, due to the deficits affecting their trunk and scapular movement patterns, are under unfavorable conditions for being able to perform appropriate and selective activation of these muscles, which has a negative impact on the movement of the UL (911).

Regarding the UL muscles involved in reaching movements, a deficit in muscle control and activation has been observed (51213). The synergistic contraction of the shoulder flexor and extensor muscles during reach becomes deteriorated due to muscle weakness and; therefore, the resulting movement is deficient (14). Furthermore, spastic muscle patterns may also prevent the correct performance of UL movements (1518).

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is a form of treatment that seeks to activate the paretic muscles using short-duration electrical pulses applied via surface electrodes through the skin (19). The use of FES and neuroprostheses has spanned almost four decades (2021). The use of FES as a neuroprosthesis consists of self-treatment at home by means of a neuroprosthetic neuromuscular stimulation system. The objective of this modality is to assist the performance of an activity of daily living (ADL) (22). Recently, functional and clinical improvements have been reported with the therapeutic application of FES, in which stimulation was used to increase voluntary movement after stroke (2223). Therapeutic FES modalities have been used to recruit UL muscles, improving weakness, the dyscoordination of single and multiple joints movements, and spasticity (24).

Most studies employing therapeutic FES for paretic UL rehabilitation are based on stimulation of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist muscles without recruitment of the interscapular muscles (2528). The importance of an appropriate and specific contraction of the interscapular musculature during UL movement is necessary to adapt the position of the scapulothoracic joint to the degree of movement of the glenohumeral joint. This musculature has a stabilizing function upon the entire glenohumeral complex, which is necessary for a correct reaching movement (2931). In healthy subjects, the posture of the trunk has been shown to influence changes in scapular movement and interscapular muscle activity during UL elevation (2932). The motor control of shoulder movement influences the correct and proper activation and synchronization of these muscles (33).

In this study, we tested the ability of a FES system to assist the UL movement of stroke patients based on the stimulation of interscapular, shoulder, elbow, wrist, and finger muscles. To our knowledge, no empirical study to date directly addresses this question. The authors hypothesized that participants receiving FES to the UL and interscapular muscles would be able to perform the movement with less trunk anteroposterior tilt and major shoulder flexion and elbow extension. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate whether the application of FES to the UL and interscapular muscles of stroke patients with UL motor impairment would be able to modify their reaching patterns, measured using instrumental movement analysis systems.[…]

Continue —> Frontiers | The Use of Functional Electrical Stimulation on the Upper Limb and Interscapular Muscles of Patients with Stroke for the Improvement of Reaching Movements: A Feasibility Study | Neurology

Figure 1. Patient with the functional electrical stimulation device.

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

Leave a comment

[WEB SIDE] WalkAide & Foot Drop – WalkAide.com

WalkAide & Foot Drop

​​​​WalkAide: Helping​​ You Get a Leg Up on Foot Drop

WalkAide is a class II, FDA cleared medical device, designed to improve walking ability in people experiencing foot drop caused by upper motor neuron injuries or conditions such as:

  • Multiple Sc​​lerosis (MS)​
  • Stroke (CVA)
  • Cerebral Palsy (CP)
  • Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
  • Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)​​

​Foot Drop or Dropped Foot is a condition caused by weakness or paralysis of the muscles involved in lifting the front part of the foot, which causes a person to drag the toe of the shoe on the ground or slap the foot on the floor.

Foot drop (also known as drop foot) may result from damage to the central nervous system such as stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis. The WalkAide is designed to assist with the ability to lift the foot for those individuals who have suffered an injury to their central nervous system. The WalkAide is not designed to work with people who have damage to the lower motor neurons/peripheral nerves.​

WalkAide vs. AFO​

Traditionally, foot drop is treated with bracing using an ankle foot orthosis (AFO). The passive treatement offered by AFOs do not promote active use of neuromuscular systems and also limits ankle range of motion. In addition, AFOs can be uncomfortable, bulky, and, if poorly fitted, produce areas of pressure and tissue breakdown. The WalkAide may replace the traditional AFO to re-engage a person’s existing nerve pathways and muscles. Using the WalkAide, in most cases, frees the patient from AFO restrictions. 

The recruitment of existing muscles results in reduction of atrophy and walking fatigue – a common side effect of foot bracing. WalkAide users have the freedom to walk with or without footwear, up and down the stairs, and even sidestep.

Comparison of Benefits of Functional Electrical
Stimulation (FES) and Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) for Foot Drop​

AFO = ankle foot orthosis • FES = functional electrical stimulation • ROM = range of motion
​​

Advanced Technology; Easy to Use

​​​Invented by a team of researchers at the University of Alberta, WalkAide uses functional electrical stimulation (FES) to restore typical nerve-to-muscle signals in the leg and foot, effectively lifting the foot at the appropriate time. The resulting movement is a smoother, more natural and safer stepping motion. It may allow faster walking for longer distances with less fatigue. In fact, many people who try WalkAide experience immediate and substantial improvement in their walking ability, which increases their mobility, functionality, and overall independence.

​A sophisticated medical device, WalkAide uses advanced tilt sensor technology to analyze the movement of your leg. This tilt sensor adjust the timing of stimulation for every step. The system sends electrical signals or stimulation to the peroneal nerve, which controls movement in your ankle and foot. These gentle electrical impulses activate the muscles to raise your foot at the appropriate time during the step cycle.

​Although highly-advanced, WalkAide is surprisingly small and easy to use. It consists of a AA battery-operated, single-channel electrical stimulator, two electrodes, and electrode leads. WalkAide is applied directly to the leg — not implanted underneath the skin — which means no surgery is involved. A cuff holds the system comfortably in place, and it can be worn discreetly under most clothing. With the WalkAide’s patented Tilt Sensor technology, most users do not require additional external wiring or remote heel sensors.

​​WalkAide Provides the Advantages not Found in Typical Foot Drop Treamtents :

  • Easy one-handed operation and application
  • Small, self-contained unit
  • Does not require orthopedic or special shoes
  • May be worn barefoot or with slippers
  • Minimal contact means minimal discomfort with reduced perspiration
  • May improve circulation, reduce atrophy, improve voluntary control and increase joint range of motion

Customized For Individual Walking Pattern

​WalkAide is not a one size fits all device. Rather, a specially trained medical professional customizes and fits the WalkAide. Using WalkAnalyst, a multifaceted computer software program, the clinician can tailor WalkAide to an individual’s walking pattern for optimal effectiveness.

Exercise Mode for Home Use

​In addition fo walking assistance, the WalkAide system includes a pre-programmable exercise mode that allows a user to exercise his/her muscles while resting for a set period of time as prescribed.​

Visit Site —> WalkAide & Foot Drop – WalkAide.com

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Development and validation of a novel questionnaire for self-determination of the range of motion of wrist and elbow – Full Text

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a novel self-administered questionnaire for assessing the patient’s own range of motion (ROM) of the wrist and the elbow.

Methods

In a prospective clinical study from January 2015 to June 2015, 101 consecutive patients were evaluated with a novel, self-administered, diagram-based, wrist motion assessment score (W-MAS) and elbow motion assessment score (E-MAS). The questionnaire was statistically evaluated for test-retest reliability, patient-physician agreement, comparison with healthy population, and influence of covariates (age, gender, affected side and involvement in workers’ compensation cases).

Results

Assessment of patient-physician agreement demonstrated almost perfect agreement (k > 0.80) with regard to six out of eight items. There was substantial agreement with regard to two items: elbow extension (k = 0.76) and pronation (k = 0.75). The assessment of the test-retest reliability revealed at least substantial agreement (k = 0.70). The questionnaire revealed a high discriminative power when comparing the healthy population with the study group (p = 0.007 or lower for every item). Age, gender, affected side and involvement in workers’ compensation cases did not in general significantly influence the patient-physician agreement for the questionnaire.

Conclusion

The W-MAS and E-MAS are valid and reliable self-administered questionnaires that provide a high level of patient-physician agreement for the assessments of wrist and elbow ROM.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic study, Level II

Background

Assessing the patient’s outcome and satisfaction is important in modern orthopedic practice [1, 2, 3]. Using questionnaires to evaluate patients with wrist and elbow disorders is widespread and has been shown to be valid and reproducible [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Self-reported outcome measures allow outcomes to be assessed from the patient’s perspective and do not require time in clinic or medical staff for data collection.

Common self-administered questionnaires for the determination of hand- and upper limp specific results of the wrist (e.g. patient-rated wrist evaluation, PRWE [8]) and of the elbow (e.g. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow, ASES-E [1]) enable the patient to assess the functional impairment of the joint, but they do not formally assess the range of motion, and patients have to attend clinic for this to be measured [10]. Therefore important data regarding the ROM would be lost in patients who are unable or unwilling to come to the outpatient clinic at the regular follow-up or for clinical research.

To our knowledge no validated self-assessment questionnaire for the ROM of the wrist or the elbow exists, which compares the agreement of the patient’s outcome with the examination by a physician.

Therefore, the aim of the current study was to develop a self-administered, diagram-based wrist motion assessment score (W-MAS) and elbow motion assessment score (E-MAS) to enable the patients to assess their own ROM of the wrist and the elbow. We further evaluated validity and reliability of this novel questionnaire with respect to the accuracy of self-determination of the wrist and elbow ROM.

Continue —>  Development and validation of a novel questionnaire for self-determination of the range of motion of wrist and elbow | BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Full Text

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[WEB SITE] Sitroll Offers Older Adults Low Impact and Ease of Use for Strength Building and Range of Motion Exercises – Rehab Managment

Published on June 9, 2016

A Sitroll user demonstrates exercise by grasping both side handles and holding firmly. Both feet are placed on lower resistance bands, and the user then rolls forward and backward at a comfortable speed by pulling and pushing with the arms and legs.

A Sitroll user demonstrates exercise by grasping both side handles and holding firmly. Both feet are placed on lower resistance bands, and the user then rolls forward and backward at a comfortable speed by pulling and pushing with the arms and legs.

The new Sitroll multi-function strength trainer, available from New York-based Sitroll and Amazon, offers a variety of resistance training options that older adults can easily perform from a seated position. Sitroll’s exercises are directed at individuals unable to perform intense, strenuous forms of exercise but who need activity they can perform regularly by themselves or with assistance.

Designed for ease of use, Sitroll is built on wheels and rolls forward and backward smoothly on a track. The patented device is equipped with a series of upper and lower natural rubber tubing, hand gripping slides, and soft balls designed to provide non-strenuous resistance exercise movements.

Sitroll can be used by one or two participants simultaneously. The device’s resistance bands facilitate more than 30 different exercises, including flexion and extension routines, which make it useful for physical therapy and occupational therapy activities. Sitroll is engineered to have a compact design so it can be easily folded and stored when not in use.

A Sitroll user demonstrates optional exercises using resistance bands located on top of the device.

A Sitroll user demonstrates optional exercises using resistance bands located on top of the device.

Applications for the Sitroll include therapeutic activity after accident trauma, stroke, or surgery. It can also be used after any period of hospitalization when a period of remissive time in recovery is required to regain prior health. Populations for whom the Sitroll may be particularly effective include older adults and geriatric users, and individuals affected by high blood pressure, Parkinson’s disease, or diabetes. Those who are affected by arthritis, heart, and lung problems can also benefit from using the Sitroll.

Meyer Rotberg, DPT, Preferred Therapy of New Jersey LLC, describes Sitroll as the perfect home gym that requires minimal setup or supervision.

“Patients being discharged from the clinical setting can continue to progress at home with the use of the Sitroll,” Rotberg says.

Sitroll can also be a valuable asset to long-term care facilities, hospitals, adult day care, or assisted living facilities, according to Rotberg.

“Patients in nursing homes are often faced with many medical issue stemming from a lack of exercise,” Rotberg says. He points out that patients are often limited with the amount of therapy they may receive and frequently are provided maintenance programs with insufficient activity.

“Sitroll can be used in exciting ways to keep patients active by providing a full range of exercises,” Rotberg says.

[Source: Sitroll]

Source: Sitroll Offers Older Adults Low Impact and Ease of Use for Strength Building and Range of Motion Exercises – Rehab Managment

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Range of Motion Requirements for Upper-Limb Activities of Daily Living – AJOT

December 2015

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. We quantified the range of motion (ROM) required for eight upper-extremity activities of daily living (ADLs) in healthy participants.

METHOD. Fifteen right-handed participants completed several bimanual and unilateral basic ADLs while joint kinematics were monitored using a motion capture system. Peak motions of the pelvis, trunk, shoulder, elbow, and wrist were quantified for each task.

RESULTS. To complete all activities tested, participants needed a minimum ROM of −65°/0°/105° for humeral plane angle (horizontal abduction–adduction), 0°–108° for humeral elevation, −55°/0°/79° for humeral rotation, 0°–121° for elbow flexion, −53°/0°/13° for forearm rotation, −40°/0°/38° for wrist flexion–extension, and −28°/0°/38° for wrist ulnar–radial deviation. Peak trunk ROM was 23° lean, 32° axial rotation, and 59° flexion–extension.

CONCLUSION. Full upper-limb kinematics were calculated for several ADLs. This methodology can be used in future studies as a basis for developing normative databases of upper-extremity motions and evaluating pathology in populations.

Source: Range of Motion Requirements for Upper-Limb Activities of Daily Living

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Effects of Electrical Stimulation in Spastic Muscles After Stroke Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials – Full Text PDF

Background and Purpose—Neuromuscular electric stimulation (NMES) has been used to reduce spasticity and improve range of motion in patients with stroke. However, contradictory results have been reported by clinical trials. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was conducted to assess the effect of treatment with NMES with or without association to another therapy on spastic muscles after stroke compared with placebo or another intervention.

Methods—We searched the following electronic databases (from inception to February 2015): Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies based on predefined inclusion criteria (application of electric stimulation on the lower or upper extremities, regardless of NMES dosage, and comparison with a control group which was not exposed to electric stimulation), excluding studies with ❤ days of intervention. The primary outcome extracted was spasticity, assessed by the Modified Ashworth Scale, and the secondary outcome extracted was range of motion, assessed by Goniometer.

Results—Of the total of 5066 titles, 29 randomized clinical trials were included with 940 subjects. NMES provided reductions in spasticity (−0.30 [95% confidence interval, −0.58 to −0.03], n=14 randomized clinical trials) and increase in range of motion when compared with control group (2.87 [95% confidence interval, 1.18–4.56], n=13 randomized clinical trials) after stroke.

Conclusions—NMES combined with other intervention modalities can be considered as a treatment option that provides improvements in spasticity and range of motion in patients after stroke.

Full Text PDF

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] New Generation Smartphone Models for Patient Rehabilitation Exercises – Full Text PDF

ABSTRACT

Patients with the frozen shoulder condition that limits their arm movement should seek rehabilitation assistance from a medical facility. The normal process is for the patients to travel from their home to a hospital or a medical center to see a physiotherapist. Such potentially cumbersome effort may reduce their motivation and determination to seek proper treatment. Our approach is to use a single smartphone with accelerometer, magnetic field, and gyroscope sensors to provide the necessary monitoring measurements to enable effective tele-rehabilitation. This work proposes a framework for such a system and has successful developed prototype based on the Android platform. Also, there are many different smartphones in the market. Therefore, we evaluated performance of three different smartphones, which are Samsung Google Nexus S, Samsung Galaxy Note 1, and Sony Xperia Z Ultra. According to the experimentation, we have shown that smartphones with the appropriate sensors are suitable for tele-rehabilitation. Also, a newer generation model would provide more precise measurements, as expected.

Continue —> Full Text PDF

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[VIDEO] Tyromotion – Blog

 

Pablo- Detailed Explanation of Force Control Index

In this video, we show you how to evaluate individual force control with the Pablo sensor handle. In order to achieve highly specific values for the force control index (FCI)…read more →

Diego- Bilateral Training with Items of Daily Living

TyroS software can be used when the patient is seated facing towards the screen or when he or she is turned the opposite way. The direction of view must be…read more →

Tymo- Standardized Foot Position

In this video we show an example how to conduct a standardized assessment with Tymo in standing position. We use the grid which is represented at the surface and we…read more →

Amadeo- Adjustments for wrist joint position

In this video you can see which different adjustments can be carried out to support and position the wrist joint at Amadeo. The adjustment of the Hand-Arm support for therapy…read more →

Pablo Multibelts- Application for Upper Extremity Movement Therapy

Pablo System includes different sizes of Multibelts, which enable you to fasten Pablo senor handle in different places on the upper or lower extremity or on the trunk. In this…read more →

Diego- The Idea of Intelligent Gravity Compensation

Intelligent gravity compensation (IGC) enables an „assisted-as-needed“ approach with Diego. IGC provides a smooth arm weight support through the entire range of motion. This unique feature enables even severely affected…read more →

Tymo- Strength mode application

In this video we show an example how to use Tymo for stance phase training in strength mode. This strength or force control mode can only be used in 1D…read more →

Amadeo- Dos and Don’ts for using fingerfixes and fingertips

In this video we show how to use fingertips and fingerfixes- the connection elements between the fingers and Amadeo – in an easy way. Before you use the fingertips and…read more →

Pablo Multiball- Range of Motion

In this video we show how you can use Pablo Multiball. If you want to increase the range of motion in the wrist joint, the execution of end of range…read more →

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

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: