| Literature DB >> 36224659 |
Kentaro Kawamura1, Seiji Etoh2, Tomokazu Noma3, Ryota Hayashi4, Yuiko Jonoshita5, Keisuke Natsume5, Seiichi Niidome5, Yong Yu6, Megumi Shimodozono2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spasticity is evaluated by measuring the increased resistance to passive movement, primarily by manual methods. Few options are available to measure spasticity in the wrist more objectively. Furthermore, no studies have investigated the force attenuation following increased resistance. The aim of this study was to conduct a safe quantitative evaluation of wrist passive extension stiffness in stroke survivors with mild to moderate spastic paresis using a custom motor-controlled device. Furthermore, we wanted to clarify whether the changes in the measured values could quantitatively reflect the spastic state of the flexor muscles involved in the wrist stiffness of the patients.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanics; Finger; Force attenuation; Muscle spasticity; Objective assessment; Rehabilitation; Resistance force; Stroke; Wrist
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36224659 PMCID: PMC9559851 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-022-01087-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 5.208
Fig. 1Motor-controlled isokinetic custom apparatus to measure the extension stiffness in wrist joint. A Configuration of the experimental setup. B Appearance of the device. Left side: Overall picture of the equipment and positioning of the forearm and hand compartment. The hands were fixed with all fingers extended to reflect not only the spasticity of wrist flexors but also that of the extrinsic finger flexors. Right side: Lateral view of the motor and encoder compartment. C Top view of the hand compartment: The force sensor with a sliding system and hand plate. D Detailed view of the motor and encoder compartment. The axis of rotation (dotted arrow) was aligned with the axis of the wrist joint (solid circle in C)
Fig. 2Waveforms obtained by measurement and definitions. a Typical example of changes in resistance force and angular displacement in the wrist joint at each of three angular velocities (30, 60, 90 deg/s) with sequential measuring during 11 repetitions. b The difference between the peak forces (i.e. between the maximum and minimum forces) immediately after the start of extension was defined as the maximum resistance force (RF) (A). The force attenuation during the subsequent 2-s maintenance of the extended position was defined as the damping force (B). c The area from the timing of the peak resistance to the timing of the greatest attenuation of resistance was defined as the pure damping impulse (D), and the entire damping area under the curve (including the pure damping impulse) was considered the total damping impulse (C)
Baseline characteristics and clinical data of subjects (n = 17)
| Subject | Age | Sex | Time since stroke (months) | Affected side (side tested) | Diagnosis (Lesion) | MAS (average of two evaluators; out of 0–5) | BRS | Maximum angle of wrist dorsiflexion (passive) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrist flexor | Finger flexor | Arm | Hand | |||||||
| 1 | 71 | F | 1 | R | H (lt. putamen) | 0 | 0 | V | V | 61 |
| 2 | 74 | M | 3 | R | I (lt. putamen) | 0 | 0.5 | V | V | 56 |
| 3 | 76 | F | 1 | R | I (pons) | 0.5 | 0 | V | V | 56 |
| 4 | 68 | M | 0 | L | H (rt. subcortical) | 0.5 | 0.5 | V | V | 49 |
| 5 | 59 | M | 40 | R | I (lt. striatocapsular) | 1 | 1 | III–IV | IV | 70 |
| 6 | 49 | M | 2 | L | H (rt. thalamus) | 1 | 0.5 | V | V | 57 |
| 7 | 57 | M | 36 | R | I (lt. corona radiata) | 1 | 0.5 | V | V | 60 |
| 8 | 72 | M | 4 | R | I (lt. corona radiata) | 1 | 1 | V | V | 51 |
| 9 | 17 | M | 22 | R | H (lt. putamen) | 1 | 2 | III | III–IV | 45 |
| 10 | 76 | M | 166 | L | I (rt. MCA) | 1.5 | 0.5 | IV | V | 57 |
| 11 | 59 | F | 2 | L | H (rt.thalamus) | 1.5 | 0.5 | IV | V | 57 |
| 12 | 66 | M | 5 | L | H (rt. putamen) | 2 | 2.5 | III | III-IV | 42 |
| 13 | 48 | F | 6 | L | I (rt. MCA) | 2 | 2 | III | II | 64 |
| 14 | 53 | M | 26 | R | I (pons) | 2 | 1.5 | III–IV | III–IV | 61 |
| 15 | 58 | M | 48 | R | H (lt. putamen) | 2.5 | 1 | III | III | 51 |
| 16 | 57 | M | 4 | L | I (rt. MCA) | 2.5 | 2 | III | III | 51 |
| 17 | 59 | M | 49 | L | I (rt. lenticulostriate) | 3 | 1.5 | III | III | 55 |
Brunnstrom Recovery Stage (BRS) classifies the motor recovery process for patients with stoke into six stages. This classification was established from clinical observations of a large number of hemiplegic patients and is based on the degree of synergy, voluntary movement and spasticity. In the BRS, staging is performed for each of the upper limbs, fingers, and lower limbs according to the criteria as follows: Stage I = Flaccidity is present and no movements of the limbs can be initiated; Stage II = The basic limb synergies or some of their components may appear as associated reactions or minimal voluntary movement responses may be present. Spasticity begins to develop; Stage III = The patient gains voluntary control of the movement synergies, although full range of all synergy components does not necessarily develop. Spasticity is severe; Stage IV = Some movement combinations that do not follow the synergies are mastered and spasticity begins to decline; Stage V = More difficult movement combinations are possible as the basic limb synergies lose their dominance over motor acts; Stage VI = Spasticity disappears and individual joint movements become possible
M male; F female; I infarction; H hemorrhage; rt right; lt left; MAS Modified Ashworth Scale; BRS Brunnstrom Recovery Stage
Intra rater reliability of various parameters for 10 repetitive meaurments
| Parameters | ICC (1,1)(95%CI) | ICC(1,10)(95%CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 deg/s | 60 deg/s | 90 deg/s | 30 deg/s | 60 deg/s | 90 deg/s | |
| Maximum RF | 0.995 (0.990–0.998) | 0.995 (0.990–0.998) | 0.993 (0.987–0.997) | 0.9995 (0.9990–0.9998) | 0.999 (0.9990–0.9998) | 0.9993 (0.9987–0.9997) |
| Damping force | 0.797 (0.670–0.904) | 0.895 (0.816–0.953) | 0.848 (0.744–0.931) | 0.975 (0.953–0.990) | 0.988 (0.978–0.995) | 0.982 (0.967–0.993) |
| (Total) damping impulse | 0.974 (0.952–0.989) | 0.972 (0.948–0.988) | 0.970 (0.945–0.987) | 0.997 (0.995–0.999) | 0.997 (0.995–0.999) | 0.997 (0.994–0.999) |
| (Pure) damping impulse | 0.685 (0.525–0.841) | 0.823 (0.706–0.917) | 0.813 (0.692–0.912) | 0.956 (0.917–0.981) | 0.979 (0.960–0.991) | 0.977 (0.957–0.991) |
| Damping force ratio | 0.557 (0.382–0.757) | 0.621 (0.451–0.801) | 0.754 (0.612–0.881) | 0.926 (0.861–0.969) | 0.941 (0.891–0.976) | 0.968 (0.940–0.987) |
| Damping impulse ratio | 0.480 (0.306–0.699) | 0.391 (0.227–0.624) | 0.629 (0.459–0.806) | 0.902 (0.815–0.959) | 0.865 (0.746–0.943) | 0.944 (0.895–0.976) |
Fig. 3Comparisons of various parameters among the 3 velocity conditions. The lower boundary of each box indicates the 25th percentile, the line within the box marks the median, and the upper boundary indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers above and below each box indicate the maximum and minimum values, respectively. The open circles denote outliers. The Shapiro–Wilk test showed that not all data were normally distributed for each parameter. The nonparametric Friedman test followed by the post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Holm’s correction was applied. The asterisks indicate significant differences (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01) between conditions
Comparison of the 1st and 10th (2nd and 11th of 11 repetition) measured values at each velocity in various parameters (average ± SD)
| Angular velocity | Maximum RF (N) | P value | Damping force (N) | P value | Damping force ratio | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 deg/s | 13.0 ± 9.4 | 12.1 ± 8.8 | < 0.05 (W) | 1.33 ± 0.76 | 1.10 ± 0.69 | p < 0.05 (W) | 0.12 ± 0.044 | 0.11 ± 0.064 | p = 0.49 (W) |
| 60 deg/s | 11.3 ± 7.8 | 10.6 ± 7.1 | < 0.01 (P) | 1.41 ± 1.04 | 1.16 ± 0.82 | p = 0.13 (W) | 0.14 ± 0.070 | 0.13 ± 0.086 | p = 0.58 (W) |
| 90 deg/s | 11.5 ± 8.0 | 10.9 ± 7.9 | < 0.01 (W) | 1.64 ± 1.04 | 1.60 ± 1.07 | p = 0.75 (P) | 0.16 ± 0.085 | 0.16 ± 0.079 | p = 0.93 (P) |
Shapiro–Wilk normality test was applied to check the distribution of data
For non parametric data, Wilcoxon signed rank test (W) was conducted, otherwise paired t test (P) was conducted
Correlation (ρ value) between the average MAS and various parameters for each achieved velocitya
| Maximum RF | Damping force | Total damping impulse | Pure damping impulse | Damping force ratio | Damping impulse ratio | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angular velocity (deg/s) | Angular velocity (deg/s) | Angular velocity (deg/s) | Angular velocity (deg/s) | Angular velocity (deg/s) | Angular velocity (deg/s) | |||||||||||||
| 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 60 | 90 | 30 | 60 | ||
| Average MAS | ||||||||||||||||||
| Wrist | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.3 | 0.28 | 0.38 | 0.03 | − 0 | − 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.3 | 0.36 | 0.23 | 0.43 | 0.53* | 0.25 | 0.47 | 0.56* |
| Wrist + finger | − 0.13 | − 0.2 | − 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 0.32 | − 0.13 | − 0.18 | − 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.27 | 0.3 | 0.50* | 0.65** | 0.36 | 0.57* | 0.68** |
a*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01 Spearman rank correlation test was applied for all data analysis
Fig. 4Comparisons between mild and moderate spasticity. In each of the 3 velocity conditions for the damping force ratio (a) and the damping impulse ratio (b). The asterisks indicate significant differences (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001) between groups. The Shapiro–Wilk and Levene statistical tests were used to examine the normality and equality of variance. According to the results of these tests, a two-sample t test (TT) or Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test (WMW) was applied for between-group analysis. The differences at 90 deg/s for both ratios and at 30 deg/s for the damping impulse ratio were analyzed by WMW; otherwise, TT was used