| Literature DB >> 32685613 |
Mei-Hong Zhu1, Ming Zeng1, Mei-Fang Shi1, Xu-Dong Gu1, Fang Shen1, Ye-Ping Zheng1, Ya-Ping Jia1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of mirror neuron theory-based visual feedback therapy (VFT) on restoration of upper limb function of stroke patients and motor-related cortical function using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).Entities:
Keywords: Action execution; Activities of daily living; Mirror neurons; Motor cortex; Rehabilitation; Somatosensory evoked potentials; Stroke; Visual feedback
Year: 2020 PMID: 32685613 PMCID: PMC7355201 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.04.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nurs Sci ISSN: 2352-0132
Fig. 1Flow chart of the cases included in this study.
General information of patients in the two groups.
| Information | VFT ( | CTL ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, | ||||
| Male | 10(62.50%) | 8(53.33%) | – | 0.722a |
| Female | 6(37.50%) | 7(46.67%) | ||
| Age, years, | 57.75 ± 16.75 | 56.89 ± 17.93 | 0.192 | 0.424 |
| Course, | 30.67 ± 17.85 | 31.54 ± 18.79 | 0.184 | 0.427 |
| Side of hemiplegia, | ||||
| Left side | 9(56.25%) | 8(53.33%) | – | 1.000a |
| Right side | 7(43.75%) | 7(46.67%) | ||
| Stroke type, | ||||
| Intracerebral hemorrhage | 5(31.25%) | 4(26.67%) | – | 1.000a |
| Cerebral infarction | 11(68.75%) | 11(73.33%) | ||
Note: VFT, visual feedback therapy; CTL, control; a Fisher’s exact probability value.
Fig. 2Patient receiving visual feedback therapy.
Fig. 3Patients receiving visual feedback therapy in a group.
Physical function of the upper limbs and BI of the two groups ().
| Group | FMA | BI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VFT ( | Baseline | 21.76 ± 6.89 | 42.75 ± 11.09 |
| 8th week | 43.85 ± 6.42ab | 72.33 ± 11.82ab | |
| 7.51 | 9.56 | ||
| 0.03 | <0.001 | ||
| CTL | Baseline | 22.01 ± 5.67 | 43.78 ± 12.11 |
| 8th week | 38.31 ± 7.36a | 63.75 ± 10.45a | |
| 6.42 | 7.22 | ||
| 0.04 | 0.03 |
Note: BI, Barthel Index; VFT, visual feedback therapy; CTL, control; FMA, Fugl–Meyer assessment; a means P < 0.05 compared with baseline data; b means P < 0.05 compared with data of CTL group.
SEP results at baseline and 8th week in the two groups ().
| Group | N9 latency | N9 amplitude(uv) | N20 latency(ms) | N20 amplitude(uv) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VFT | Hemiparalysis side | ||||
| Baseline | 10.29 ± 1.20 | 3.51 ± 1.35 | 21.84 ± 2.23 | 1.46 ± 0.37 | |
| 8th week | 9.03 ± 1.68ab | 3.91 ± 1.18ab | 20.32 ± 2.57ab | 2.08 ± 0.51ab | |
| 6.51 | 7.49 | 7.64 | 9.27 | ||
| 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | ||
| Contralateral side | |||||
| Baseline | 9.44 ± 1.39 | 4.28 ± 1.38 | 20.25 ± 1.72 | 2.23 ± 0.55 | |
| 8th week | 9.37 ± 1.49 | 4.24 ± 1.16 | 19.85 ± 1.53b | 2.27 ± 0.58 | |
| 2.22 | 4.62 | 5.96 | 5.67 | ||
| 0.38 | 0.10 | 0.57 | 0.06 | ||
| CTL | Hemiparalysis side | ||||
| Baseline | 10.08 ± 1.45 | 2.70 ± 1.41 | 21.11 ± 2.31 | 1.26 ± 0.40 | |
| 8th week | 9.52 ± 1.54a | 2.84 ± 1.47 | 20.51 ± 2.69a | 1.51 ± 0.44b | |
| 8.43 | 3.42 | 7.35 | 2.17 | ||
| 0.03 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 0.42 | ||
| Contralateral side | |||||
| Baseline | 9.44 ± 1.52 | 3.77 ± 1.64 | 20.10 ± 1.89 | 2.05 ± 0.47 | |
| 8th week | 9.27 ± 1.23 | 3.97 ± 1.52 | 19.77 ± 2.00 | 2.11 ± 0.50 | |
| 1.32 | 2.62 | 4.69 | 3.76 | ||
| 0.83 | 0.23 | 0.47 | 0.36 | ||
Note: SEP, somatosensory evoked potential; VFT, visual feedback therapy; CTL, control; a means P < 0.05 compared with baseline data; b means P < 0.05 compared with data of CTL group.
Fig. 4Comparison of SEPs before and after recovery training. SEP, somatosensory evoked potential; VFT, visual feedback therapy; CTL, control; TB, VFT group before; TA, VFT group after; CB, CTL group before; CA, CTL group after.
FMA score and BI in the two groups at the end of treatment and follow-up for two months (.
| Group | FMA | BI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VFT | At the end of treatment | 43.85 ± 6.42 | 72.21 ± 11.82 |
| Follow-up for 2 months | 50.11 ± 7.11ab | 82.11 ± 9.93ab | |
| 8.31 | 9.41 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| CTL | At the end of treatment | 38.31 ± 7.36 | 63.75 ± 10.45 |
| Follow-up for 2 months | 45.50 ± 7.52a | 73.25 ± 11.57a | |
| 8.50 | 7.60 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.02 |
Note: FMA, Fugl–Meyer assessment; VFT, visual feedback therapy; CTL, control; a means P < 0.05 compared with the baseline data; b means P < 0.05 compared with the data of CTL group.
Activation areas of brain in the two groups after treatment (n).
| Group | Time | Precentral gyrus | Parietal lobe | SMA | Occipital lobe | Basal ganglia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VFT | At the end of treatment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 |
| Follow-up for 2 months | 8ab | 8ab | 9ab | 8 | 4 | |
| 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.002 | 1.000 | 0.620 | ||
| CTL | At the end of treatment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 |
| Follow-up for 2 months | 4 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 2 | |
| 0.608 | 0.608 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.467 |
Note: VFT, visual feedback therapy; CTL, control; a means P < 0.05 compared with the data at the end of treatment; b means P < 0.05 compared with the data of CTL group; Fisher’s exact was used for data analysis.