Upper limb movement control after stroke and in healthy ageing: does intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation improve motor control and reduce motor impairment in the chronic phase of stroke?

Stroke affects people of all ages, but many are in the elderly population. 75% of stroke survivors have residual upper limb motor impairment and resultant disability. This thesis firstly examines upper limb motor control in chronic stroke. Evidence is emerging that high dose, high intensity complex neurorehabilitation interventions in chronic stroke patients produce unprecedented gains on clinical outcome scores of motor impairment, function and activity. But whether these clinical improvements represent behavioural repair or merely behavioural compensation remains undetermined. To address this question, upper limb movement kinematics, strength and joint range and clinical scores were measured in 52 chronic stroke patients before and after an intensive three-week treatment intervention. 29 chronic stroke patients who had not undergone treatment were similarly assessed, three-weeks apart. Significant improvements in motor control, arm strength and joint range in addition to gains on clinical scores were observed in the impaired arm of the intervention group. Crucially, changes in motor control occurred independently of changes in strength and joint range. Improvements in motor control were retained in a cohort of 28 patients in the intervention group, also assessed 6-weeks and 6-months after treatment had ended, demonstrating persistent changes in motor behaviour. These results suggest that behavioural restitution has occurred. Secondly, knowledge of the effects of normal healthy ageing on upper limb motor control is essential to informing research and delivery of clinical services. To this end, movement kinematics were measured in both arms of 57 healthy adults aged 22 to 82 years. A decline in motor control was observed as age increased, particularly in the non-dominant arm. However, motor control in healthy adults of all ages remained significantly better than in chronic stroke patients pre- and post-intervention. This thesis provides new evidence that treatment-driven improvements in motor control are achievable in the chronic post-stroke upper limb, which strongly suggests that motor control should remain a therapeutic target well beyond the current three to six-month post-stroke window. It will inform the continued development and delivery of high dose, high intensity upper limb neurorehabilitation treatment interventions for stroke patients of all ages

Home-based reach-to-grasp training for people after stroke: study protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThis feasibility study is intended to assess the acceptability of home-based task-specific reach-to-grasp (RTG) training for people with stroke, and to gather data to inform recruitment, retention, and sample size for a definitive randomized controlled trial. Methods/designThis is to be a randomized controlled feasibility trial recruiting 50 individuals with upper-limb motor impairment after stroke. Participants will be recruited after discharge from hospital and up to 12 months post-stroke from hospital stroke services and community therapy-provider services. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and then electronically randomized and allocated to group by minimization, based on the time post-stroke and extent of upper-limb impairment. The intervention group will receive 14 training sessions, each 1 hour long, with a physiotherapist over 6 weeks and will be encouraged to practice independently for 1 hour/day to give a total of 56 hours of training time per participant. Participants allocated to the control group will receive arm therapy in accordance with usual care. Participants will be measured at 7 weeks post-randomization, and followed-up at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. Primary outcome measures for assessment of arm function are the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). Secondary measures are the Motor Activity Log, Stroke Impact Scale, Carer Strain Index, and health and social care resource use. All assessments will be conducted by a trained assessor blinded to treatment allocation. Recruitment, adherence, withdrawals, adverse events (AEs), and completeness of data will be recorded and reported. DiscussionThis study will determine the acceptability of the intervention, the characteristics of the population recruited, recruitment and retention rates, descriptive statistics of outcomes, and incidence of AEs. It will provide the information needed for planning a definitive trial to test home-based RTG training. Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN5671658

Home-based therapy programmes for upper limb functional recovery following stroke

Background: With an increased focus on home-based stroke services and the undertaking of programmes, targeted at upper limb recovery within clinical practice, a systematic review of home-based therapy programmes for individuals with upper limb impairment following stroke was required. Objectives: To determine the effects of home-based therapy programmes for upper limb recovery in patients with upper limb impairment following stroke. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Specialised Trials Register (May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), AMED (1985 to May 2011) and six additional databases. We also searched reference lists and trials registers. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults after stroke, where the intervention was a home-based therapy programme targeted at the upper limb, compared with placebo, or no intervention or usual care. Primary outcomes were performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and functional movement of the upper limb. Secondary outcomes were performance in extended ADL and motor impairment of the arm. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook assessment of risk of bias in terms of method of randomisation and allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), whether all the randomised patients were accounted for in the analysis (attrition bias) and the presence of selective outcome reporting. Main results: We included four studies with 166 participants. No studies compared the effects of home-based upper limb therapy programmes with placebo or no intervention. Three studies compared the effects of home-based upper limb therapy programmes with usual care. Primary outcomes: we found no statistically significant result for performance of ADL (mean difference (MD) 2.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.43 to 7.14) or functional movement of the upper limb (MD 2.25; 95% CI -0.24 to 4.73)). Secondary outcomes: no statistically significant results for extended ADL (MD 0.83; 95% CI -0.51 to 2.17)) or upper limb motor impairment (MD 1.46; 95% CI -0.58 to 3.51). One study compared the effects of a home-based upper limb programme with the same upper limb programme based in hospital, measuring upper limb motor impairment only; we found no statistically significant difference between groups (MD 0.60; 95% CI -8.94 to 10.14). Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient good quality evidence to make recommendations about the relative effect of home-based therapy programmes compared with placebo, no intervention or usual care