| Literature DB >> 35884625 |
Mahdi Yazdani1,2, Ahmad Chitsaz3, Vahid Zolaktaf1, Mohammad Saadatnia3, Majid Ghasemi3, Fatemeh Nazari4, Abbas Chitsaz1, Katsuhiko Suzuki5, Hadi Nobari1,6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impairment of limb function and disability are among the most im portant consequences of stroke. To date, however, little research has been done on the early reha bilitation trial (ERT) after stroke in these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of ERT neuromuscular protocol on motor function soon after hemiparetic stroke. The sample included twelve hemiparetic patients (54.3 ± 15.4 years old) with ischemic stroke (n = 7 control, n = 5 intervention patients). ERTwas started as early as possible after stroke and included passive range of motion exercises, resistance training, assisted standing up, and active exercises of the healthy side of the body, in addition to encouraging voluntary contraction of affected limbs as much as possible. The rehabilitation was progressive and took 3 months, 6 days per week, 2-3 h per session. Fu gle-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Box and Blocks test (BBT) and Timed up and go (TUG) assessments were conducted. There was a significantly greater improvement in the intervention group com pared to control: FMA lower limbs (p = 0.001), total motor function (p = 0.002), but no significant difference in FMA upper limb between groups (p = 0.51). The analysis of data related to BBT showed no significant differences between the experimental and control groups (p = 0.3). However, TUG test showed significant differences between the experimental and control groups (p = 0.004). The most important finding of this study was to spend enough time in training sessions and provide adequate rest time for each person. Our results showed that ERT was associated with improved motor function but not with the upper limbs. This provides a basis for a definitive trial.Entities:
Keywords: acute stroke; early rehabilitation trial; exercise therapy; motor function
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884625 PMCID: PMC9313239 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1CONSORT flow chart of participants for recruitment, application, follow-up and analysis.
Patient demographics.
| Role | Group | Sex | ge | Lesion Location | NIHSS | MRS | LS | TTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ER | Female | 36 | Frontoparietal + basal ganglia | 12 | 4 | left | 72 |
| 2 | ER | Male | 81 | Pons + medulla |
| 4 | Right | 48 |
| 3 | ER | Male | 83 | basal ganglia | 9 | 4 | Right | 24 |
| 4 | ER | Male | 67 | Frontoparietal + basal ganglia | 16 | 5 | left | 48 |
| 5 | ER | Male | 53 | Basal ganglia + temporal cortex | 11 | 5 | left | 24 |
| 6 | SC | Male | 42 | Tempofrontal+ basal ganglia | 16 | 5 | left | 24 |
| 7 | SC | Male | 53 | Basal ganglia | 13 | 4 | Right | 48 |
| 8 | SC | Female | 51 | Frontoparietal + basal ganglia | 13 | 5 | left | 72 |
| 9 | SC | Female | 40 | Frontopariental + basal ganglia | 17 | 5 | Right | 24 |
|
| SC | Male | 57 | Basal ganglia | 17 | 5 | left |
|
| 11 | SC | Male | 48 | basal ganglia | 16 | 5 | left | 24 |
| 12 | SC | Male | 41 | Basal ganglia | 9 | 4 | left | 48 |
ER = Exercise rehabilitation, SC = Standard care, NIHSS = National institutes of health stroke scale, MRS = Modified ranking scale, LS = Lesion side, TTS = Time to start.
Neuromuscular rehabilitation protocol.
| Mode of Exercise | Major Goals | Intensity/Frequency/Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility | • Increase ROM of involved extremities | • 6 d/wk |
| Strength | Increase independence in ADLs | • 2 sets of 15–30 repetitions of 8–14 exercises |
| Neuromuscular | • Improve level of safety during ADLs | 6 d/wk |
Type of training: Fle & ext elbow (WWR), Fle & ext shoulder (WWR), Horizontal Fle & ext shoulder (WWR), Abd & add shoulder (WWR), Fle & Ext leg (WWR), Abd & add leg (WWR), Bridging, knee Fle (prone (Ext, (WWR), and plantar & dorsiflexion (WWR). After getting at least abilities and with the support he leaves the bed: Standing test, step in place, squat, walking, walking over obstacles. The given program emphasized voluntary contractions and work on the acute phase of stroke and was modified according to each patient’s personal conditions and abilities. WWR: with and without resistance, RPE: rating of perceived exertion, ROM: range of motion, and ADL: activity of daily living.
Figure 2Comparison of groups in assessments. ER = Exercise rehabilitation, SC = Standard care, FMA = Fugle-Meyer Assessment, BBT = Box and Blocks Test, TUG = Time Up and Go.
Results of effectiveness measures for each participant.
| Role | Groups | FAM Upper (n) | FAM Lower (n) | TUG (s) | BBT (n) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | ||
| 1 | ER | 3 | 18 | 5 | 34 | 0 | 14.35 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | ER | 4 | 31 | 6 | 26 | 0 | 29.57 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | ER | 29 | 64 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 25.76 | 0 | 42 |
| 4 | ER | 0 | 24 | 4 | 23 | 0 | 26.77 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | ER | 2 | 41 | 10 | 34 | 0 | 18.61 | 0 | 6 |
| 6 | SC | 0 | 8 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 60 * | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | SC | 2 | 14 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 60 * | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | SC | 2 | 11 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 60 * | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | SC | 2 | 16 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 37.46 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | SC | 0 | 12 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 60 * | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | SC | 0 | 12 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 60 * | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | SC | 0 | 22 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 20.24 | 0 | 0 |
ER = Exercise rehabilitation, SC = Standard care, FMA = Fugl-Meyer Assessment, BBT = Box and Blocks Test, TUG = Time Up and Go, 60 * = Each patient who was unable to walk received a score of 60.#.
Figure 3Error bars plots showing result of Fugl-Meyer Upper & Lower function between two groups.