| Literature DB >> 34275914 |
Pradeepa Ruwan Wanni Arachchige1, Sadhani Karunarathna1,2, Abdul Chalik Meidian3, Ryo Ueda4, Wataru Uchida1, Masahiro Abo5, Atsushi Senoo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although quite a very few studies have tested structural connectivity changes following an intervention, it reflects only selected key brain regions in the motor network. Thus, the understanding of structural connectivity changes related to the motor recovery process remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Low-frequency rTMS and OT intervention; graph theory analysis; motor execution network; stroke recovery; structural connectivity
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34275914 PMCID: PMC8543268 DOI: 10.3233/RNN-211148
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci ISSN: 0922-6028 Impact factor: 2.406
Demographics characteristics of stroke patients (n = 56)
| Characteristics | Patients |
| Age (mean±SD) (Years) | 63±11.2 |
| Gender ( | |
| Males | 41 (73%) |
| Females | 15 (27%) |
| Type of stroke ( | |
| Cerebral haemorrhage | 33 (59%) |
| Cerebral infarction | 23 (41%) |
| Duration after stroke (mean±SD) (Years) | 4.6±3.5 |
| Brunnstrom recovery stages | |
| Upper limb (III/ IV/V/VI) | 36/15/4/1 |
| Hand and fingers (III/ IV/ V/ VI) | 9/26/15/6 |
Fig. 1Changes in degree centrality (A), betweenness centrality (B) and nodal efficiency (C) from pre-intervention (blue) to post-intervention (orange) across the motor execution areas. C-contralesional hemisphere I-ipsilesional hemisphere **(p < 0.05, FDR) and *(q < 0.05). Abbreviations in the figures; Cau: Caudate, Cb: Cerebellum, Cun: Cuneus, FP: frontal pole, Pal: pallidum, Poc: Postcentral gyrus, Prc: precentral gyrus, Put: Putamen, SP: superior parietal, Thal: Thalamus.
The correlation between regional network measures and the clinical assessments (p < 0.05)
| Brain regions | Graph measure | t-value | |
| FMA | |||
| Degree centrality | C.Caudate | 2.551 | 0.015 |
| C.Frontal pole | 2.405 | 0.022 | |
| I.Cuneus | –2.128 | 0.041 | |
| I.Precentral gyrus | 2.335 | 0.025 | |
| Betweenness centrality | I.Putamen | –2.403 | 0.022 |
| Nodal efficiency | C.Caudate | 2.544 | 0.016 |
| C.Frontal pole | 2.395 | 0.021 | |
| I.Cuneus | –2.12 | 0.041 | |
| I.Precentral gyrus | 2.329 | 0.026 | |
| WMFT | |||
| Degree centrality | C.Caudate | 2.429 | 0.02 |
| C.Cerebellum | 2.804 | 0.008 | |
| C.Frontal pole | 2.808 | 0.008 | |
| I.Postcentral gyrus | –2.402 | 0.022 | |
| I.Putamen | –2.944 | 0.006 | |
| Betweenness centrality | I.Putamen | –2.425 | 0.021 |
| Nodal efficiency | C.Caudate | 2.424 | 0.021 |
| C.Cerebellum | 2.798 | 0.008 | |
| C.Frontal pole | 2.807 | 0.008 | |
| I.Postcentral gyrus | –2.398 | 0.022 | |
| I.Putamen | –2.945 | 0.006 |
Positive t-values show positive correlations. C: Contralesional hemisphere, I: Ipsileisional hemisphere.