PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize the recovery pattern of stroke patients in the first 6 months following stroke. METHOD: Using the Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance (RASP), the Motricity index and the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) index, a case series of serial somatosensory and motor measurements was made on 18 patients with a diagnosis of a first ever stroke. Patients comprised 2 distinct groups, acute and subacute. The acute group were seen weekly for the first month post onset and the subacute group were seen monthly for 6 months. Participants were seen at hospital, regional rehabilitation unit and/or the participant's home. Standard local rehabilitation was given. RESULTS: The somatosensory subtest of proprioception demonstrated the greatest level of recovery. No patient achieved full recovery on all somatosensory subtests. Motor and functional recovery demonstrated continual improvement over time, somatosensory recovery showed marked variation in subtests both within and between patients. CONCLUSION: Of the 18 patients tested there were no consistent, generalizable, recognizable patterns of sensory recovery demonstrated.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize the recovery pattern of strokepatients in the first 6 months following stroke. METHOD: Using the Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance (RASP), the Motricity index and the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) index, a case series of serial somatosensory and motor measurements was made on 18 patients with a diagnosis of a first ever stroke. Patients comprised 2 distinct groups, acute and subacute. The acute group were seen weekly for the first month post onset and the subacute group were seen monthly for 6 months. Participants were seen at hospital, regional rehabilitation unit and/or the participant's home. Standard local rehabilitation was given. RESULTS: The somatosensory subtest of proprioception demonstrated the greatest level of recovery. No patient achieved full recovery on all somatosensory subtests. Motor and functional recovery demonstrated continual improvement over time, somatosensory recovery showed marked variation in subtests both within and between patients. CONCLUSION: Of the 18 patients tested there were no consistent, generalizable, recognizable patterns of sensory recovery demonstrated.
Authors: L Steimann; I Missala; S van Kaick; J Walston; U Malzahn; P U Heuschmann; E Steinhagen-Thiessen; C Dohle Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.214
Authors: Riccardo Iandolo; Marta Carè; Valay A Shah; Simona Schiavi; Giulia Bommarito; Giacomo Boffa; Psiche Giannoni; Matilde Inglese; Leigh Ann Mrotek; Robert A Scheidt; Maura Casadio Journal: Somatosens Mot Res Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 1.111
Authors: Kyoung Bo Lee; Seong Hoon Lim; Kyung Hoon Kim; Ki Jeon Kim; Yang Rae Kim; Woo Nam Chang; Jun Woo Yeom; Young Dong Kim; Byong Yong Hwang Journal: Int J Rehabil Res Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.479
Authors: Sonja E Findlater; Rachel L Hawe; Jennifer A Semrau; Jeffrey M Kenzie; Amy Y Yu; Stephen H Scott; Sean P Dukelow Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.881