| Literature DB >> 25071705 |
Anna Mackey1, Cathy Stinear2, Susan Stott1, Winston D Byblow3.
Abstract
AIM: To explore the relationship between motor cortical and descending motor pathway reorganization, lesion type, and upper limb function in youth with unilateral cerebral palsy (CP).Entities:
Keywords: cerebral palsy; cortical re-organization; hemiplegia; upper limb function
Year: 2014 PMID: 25071705 PMCID: PMC4082181 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2014.00117
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Participant characteristics.
| No. | Age | Sex | Hemi | Lesion | fMRI | DTI | TMS | Upper limb function measures | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LI | FAAI | MEP present affected hand IL stim CL stim | MACS | Mirror | MUUL (%) | Box block | Bimanual tasks | Abilhands (logits) | ||||||
| 1 | 18 | F | R | PV | −0.96 | 0.04 | Y | N | I | – | 100 | 45 | 30 | 6.68 |
| 2 | 18 | F | R | PV | −1.00 | −0.02 | n/a | n/a | I | – | 95 | 38 | 30 | 5.04 |
| 3 | 16 | M | R | PV | −0.26 | 0.07 | Y | N | I | – | 98 | 45 | 30 | 6.68 |
| 4 | 12 | M | R | PV | −0.80 | 0.06 | n/a | n/a | I | – | 98 | 35 | 30 | 6.68 |
| 5 | 22 | F | L | PV | −1.00 | 0.18 | n/a | n/a | I | – | 86 | 24 | 23 | 6.68 |
| 6 | 13 | M | L | PV | −1.00 | 0.00 | Y | N | I | – | 99 | 46 | 30 | 5.04 |
| 7 | 16 | M | L | PV | −1.00 | 0.21 | n/a | n/a | I | – | 92 | 18 | 16 | 6.68 |
| 8 | 16 | F | R | PV | −1.00 | 0.01 | Y | N | I | – | 100 | 29 | 30 | 6.68 |
| 9 | 14 | M | R | PV | −1.00 | −0.02 | Y | N | I | – | 100 | 45 | 30 | 6.68 |
| 10 | 18 | F | R | C/SC | −1.00 | 0.69 | n/a | n/a | II | – | 56 | 3 | 20 | 1.76 |
| 11 | 12 | M | L | C/SC | −1.00 | 0.03 | Y | Y | II | – | 64 | 17 | 12 | 3.9 |
| 12 | 13 | M | R | C/SC* | 1.00 | 0.18 | N | Y | II | Y | 71 | 19 | 22 | 0.51 |
| 13 | 15 | M | L | C/SC* | −1.00 | n∕a | n/a | n/a | II | – | 41 | 4 | 10 | 6.68 |
| 14 | 13 | M | L | C/SC | −0.05 | 0.42 | N | Y | II | – | 46 | 13 | 16 | 3.51 |
| 15 | 12 | F | L | C/SC | −1.00 | −0.01 | n/a | n/a | II | Y | 70 | 14 | 22 | 2.89 |
| 16 | 12 | F | L | C/SC | 1.00 | n∕a | n/a | n/a | II | Y | 51 | 6 | 19 | 3.9 |
| 17 | 21 | M | L | MAL | 1.00 | 0.11 | N | Y | I | Y | 89 | 19 | 23 | 3.51 |
| 18 | 14 | F | L | MAL | −0.54 | 0.11 | Y | Y | II | Y | 74 | 16 | 18 | 5.04 |
| 19 | 13 | F | R | MAL | −1.00 | 0.07 | Y | N | II | – | 93 | 20 | 30 | 1.96 |
| 20 | 17 | M | R | MAL | 1.00 | 0.31 | N | Y | II | Y | 79 | 18 | 20 | 6.68 |
| Mn | 15 | – | – | – | −0.50 | 0.15 | – | – | – | 80 | 24 | 23 | 4.86 | |
| SD | 3 | – | – | – | 0.79 | 0.19 | – | – | – | 20 | 14 | 7 | 2.00 | |
| Min | 12 | – | – | – | −1.00 | −0.02 | – | – | – | 41 | 3 | 10 | 0.51 | |
| Max | 22 | – | – | – | 1.00 | 0.69 | – | – | 100 | 46 | 30 | 6.68 | ||
Hemiplegia (R) right; (L) left = affected upper limb.
Lesion: PV, periventricular; C/SC, cortical/subcortical; MAL, malformation; *evidence of bilateral lesions.
LI, laterality index derived from functional MRI.
FAAI, fractional anisotrophy asymmetry index derived from diffusion-weighted imaging.
MEP (IL), motor-evoked potentials in FDI muscle of affected upper limb, from ipsilesional (IL) transcranial magnetic stimulation.
MEP (CL), motor-evoked potentials in FDI muscle of affected upper limb, from contralesional (CL) transcranial magnetic stimulation.
(Y) Yes, present; (N) No, absent; n/a, not applicable – did not have TMS due to contraindications.
MACS, Manual Ability Classification System.
MUUL, Melbourne assessment of unilateral upper limb function (%).
Mirror = mirror movements, Y = grade 2 presence of slight mirror movement (.
Mn, mean; SD, standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum.
Figure 1Three participants’ images from structural and functional MRI. From left to right: anatomical T1-weighted image; fMRI contrast results thresholded to z > 2.3: both hands active condition; left hand active condition; right hand active condition. From top to bottom: participant no. 19 with right hemiplegia and high hand function (93% MUUL) showing normal contralateral (M1/S1, PMd, PMv) and medial (SMA) activation; Participant no. 20 with right hemiplegia and average hand function (79% MUUL) showing a shift in fMRI activation lateralized to CL hemisphere for the affected right hand condition: participant no. 13 with left hemiplegia and poor hand function (41% MUUL) showing less activation than Participant no. 19 but with some remaining contralateral organization.
Mean rest motor threshold and MEP latency (120% MSO).
| Hemisphere stimulated | Rest motor threshold % (SD) | Mean MEP latency ms (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contralesional | 55.3 (14.2) | Unaffected hand: 23.0 (2.0) | |
| Affected hand: 23.6 (1.9) | |||
| Ipsilesional | 70.8 (19.8) | Affected hand: 23.4 (2.0) | |
| Contralesional | Unaffected hand: 141 (56) | – | – |
| Affected hand: 115 (64) | |||
| Ipsilesional | Affected hand: 86 (47) | 8 (4–11) | 22.7 (5.4) |
SD, standard deviation; MEP, motor-evoked potentials; cSP, cortical silent period; iSP, ipsilateral silent period.
Persistence = number of trials out of 12 where silent period present.
Figure 2Representative first dorsal interosseous (FDI) EMG traces from two participants. Arrows indicate stimulus artifact, MEP [example (A)], return of voluntary EMG [example (C)], and ipsilateral SP [example (D)]. (A) Example of appropriate response to TMS to the contralesional hemisphere. Top trace = unaffected FDI and bottom trace = affected FDI (Participant no. 1). (B) Example of bilateral response to TMS to contralesional hemisphere. Top trace = unaffected FDI and bottom trace = affected FDI (Participant no. 17). (C) Example of cortical silent period following ipsilesional stimulation (Participant no. 1). Traces are averages of 12 sweeps. (D). Example of ipsilateral SP following stimulation ipsilesional hemisphere (Participant no. 1). Traces are rectified averages of 12 sweeps.