| Literature DB >> 23343500 |
Jessica M Livingston-Thomas1, R Andrew Tasker.
Abstract
Many survivors of stroke experience arm impairments, which can severely impact their quality of life. Forcing use of the impaired arm appears to improve functional recovery in post-stroke hemiplegic patients, however the mechanisms underlying improved recovery remain unclear. Animal models of post-stroke rehabilitation could prove critical to investigating such mechanisms, however modeling forced use in animals has proven challenging. Potential problems associated with reported experimental models include variability between stroke methods, rehabilitation paradigms, and reported outcome measures. Herein, we provide an overview of commonly used stroke models, including advantages and disadvantages of each with respect to studying rehabilitation. We then review various forced use rehabilitation paradigms, and highlight potential difficulties and translational problems. Lastly, we discuss the variety of functional outcome measures described by experimental researchers. To conclude, we outline ongoing challenges faced by researchers, and the importance of translational communication. Many stroke patients rely critically on rehabilitation of post-stroke impairments, and continued effort toward progression of rehabilitative techniques is warranted to ensure best possible treatment of the devastating effects of stroke.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23343500 PMCID: PMC3605246 DOI: 10.1186/2040-7378-5-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Transl Stroke Med ISSN: 2040-7378
Figure 1Following injury to the forelimb, attempts to use the impaired limb lead to unsuccessful motor attempts. The consequences include pain and failure, creating negative feedback which leads to suppression of the behaviour. Meanwhile, the unaffected or less affected forelimb is used with higher success, leading to reinforced compensation. Together, these constitute the phenomenon of learned non-use. Adapted from Taub et al. [11].
Common stroke models used in studies of rehabilitation
| MCAo (indirect ischemia) | +Models transient or permanent ischemia; | -Large and variable infarcts; | [ |
| +No craniectomy required; | -Collateral damage due to non-targeted vasculature; | ||
| +Results in cortical and striatal damage | -Feeding problems may occur; | ||
| +Widely used and well-characterized | -Some mortality | ||
| Endothelin-1 (indirect or direct ischemia) | +Models transient ischemia; | -Requires removal of some skull tissue; | [ |
| +Can produce cortical and striatal damage; | -Less control over duration of occlusion; | ||
| +Ability to control precise variables (e.g. concentration, injection volume, stereotaxic coordinates) resulting in localized lesions; | -Mechanism of vessel occlusion not well elucidated | ||
| +Can be used to model lacunar infarcts | | ||
| +Low mortality rate | | ||
| Photothrombosis (indirect or direct ischemia) | +Models permanent ischemia; low mortality rate; | -Requires skull thinning (direct); | [ |
| +Precise control over lesion size and location (direct); | -Can only produce cortical damage (direct); | ||
| +Full craniectomy is avoided | -Collateral damage to non-targeted areas (indirect) | ||
| | -No penumbra | ||
| Devascularization (direct ischemia) | +Models permanent ischemia; | -Requires removal of skull tissue; | [ |
| +Relatively good control over lesion size location; | -Mechanical damage can occur to surrounding tissue and vessels; | ||
| | -Can produce surface damage only; | ||
| -No penumbra |
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of several commonly used models of experimental stroke.
Models of experimental forelimb rehabilitation
| Constraint | +Most direct model of CIMT; | -Constraint devices may be stressful, confounding results; | [ |
| +Allows constraint for specific durations thereby allowing the evaluation of various durations of therapy; | -Lack of behavioural pressure to use paretic arm despite constraint | ||
| +Conducive to studies of unilateral forced use | | ||
| Forcing use with locomotion | +Stimulates use of the paretic limb in a less aversive paradigm | -Can be stressful (involuntary forced use); | [ |
| -May lack control over intensity (voluntary forced use); | |||
| Encouraging use | +Stimulates use of the paretic limb in a less aversive paradigm | -Complicated by other non-forced use therapy components such as cognitive stimulation; | [ |
| | -Usually involves bilateral forced use | ||
| Task specific exercises | +An addition to rehabilitation that models task specific shaping exercises of CIMT | -Requires the desire of animals to participate in a demanding task | [ |
Summary of advantages and disadvantages of previously described animal models of rehabilitation.
Figure 2A task-specific reaching exercise can be administered using an apparatus such as this. By piling palatable sugar pellets to one side of the box (opposite from the impaired forelimb) rats are encouraged to use the impaired limb to reach through the center slot. The intensity can be altered by controlling the accessing time, number of pellets, and height of the reaching box.
Commonly employed behavioural tests of forelimb function
| NSS | Awards an overall score for determining general deficit | +Encompasses a range of assessments, then compiles them into a single measure | -Time intensive; |
| -Does not inform about the nature of specific deficits; | |||
| Cylinder test | Assesses spontaneous forelimb use | +Fast and easy to administer; | -Video analysis can be time intensive |
| +Allows for analysis of a number of functional movements | | ||
| Montoya staircase test | Assesses forelimb extension, dexterity, side bias, independent use of forelimbs | +Easy to administer; | -Intensive tests training which requires food deprivation; |
| -May confound results of task- | |||
| +Allows for analysis of both reaching distance and forepaw dexterity | specific rehabilitation if performed often | ||
| Single pellet reaching task | Assesses forelimb dexterity | +Allows for in-depth analysis of the animal’s performance by isolating a single reach attempt | -Intensive tests training which requires food deprivation; |
| -May confound results of task-specific rehabilitation if performed often | |||
| Horizontal ladder test | Assesses forelimb stepping, placing, and coordination during locomotion | +Can assess forelimb and hind limb damage | -Can be complicated by post-surgical immobility |
| Forelimb flexion test | Assesses postural reflex | +Fast and easy to administer | -Measures only postural reflexive position, |
| -Only awards a 0–2 score. | |||
| Forelimb placing test | Assesses forelimb function and placing deficits | +Fast and easy to administer | -Measures only reflexive sensorimotor response; |
| -Can be difficult to distinguish between reflexive response and initiated movement, therefore experimenter must be experienced at determining validity |
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of various tests of functional deficit and recovery.
Generalized neurological severity score
| Flexion of forelimb | 1 |
| Flexion of hindlimb | 1 |
| Head moved >10° to vertical axis within 30 s | 1 |
| Normal walk | 0 |
| Inability to walk straight | 1 |
| Circling toward paretic side | 2 |
| Falls down to paretic side | 3 |
| | |
| Placing test (visual and tactile test) | 1 |
| Proprioceptive test (pushing paw against table edge) | 1 |
| Balances with steady posture | 0 |
| Grasps side of beam | 1 |
| Hugs beam and 1 limb falls down from beam | 2 |
| Hugs beam and 2 limbs fall down from beam, or spins on beam (60 s) | 3 |
| Attempts to balance on beam but falls off (40 s) | 4 |
| Attempts to balance on beam but falls off (20 s) | 5 |
| Falls off; no attempt to balance or hang on to beam (20 s) | 6 |
| Pinna reflex (head shake when auditory meatus is touched) | 1 |
| Corneal reflex (eye blink when cornea is lightly touched with cotton) | 1 |
| Startle reflex (motor response to snapping a clipboard ) | 1 |
| Seizures, myoclonus, myodystony | 1 |
A general summary of the evaluations commonly used to assess neurological severity in experimental models. This table can be modified to contain particular tests that are pertinent to the experimental design being used.
Figure 3The Schallert cylinder test [100] is performed by placing the rat into a clear plastic cylinder and analysing the proportion of contralesional limb use during exploring and rearing activities.
Figure 4The Montoya staircase test [101] measures dexterity and sensorimotor function by analysing pellet reaching behaviour. Rats are placed into apparatus with seven descending steps on each side. Steps are baited with sucrose pellets to encourage reaching.
Figure 5The horizontal ladder test is used to assess forelimb function when crossing a platform of unevenly spaced rungs. The number of foot slips is determined by video analysis.
Figure 6Forelimb placing tests involves eliciting a response from either tactile or vibrissae stimulation. Three limbs are held secure while the remaining one is tested for the ability to place the forelimb on the table edge in response to stimulation.