The Grizzly, October 15, 1982

Students for Peace and Progress Get Started • Homecoming 1982 • Annual Parents Day a Success • Letters to the Editor • Opinion: Sorority Rushing Needs Revision • Lantern Format Undecided • Dance-a-Thon for Lupus • Japan: Big and Real • New Art at Myrin • Bear Booters Win Three • Now Hold it Just a Minute! • Grizzlies Win Third Straight • X-Country Wins • Penn Blasts Lady Bears 3-0https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1084/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, February 18, 1983

Rally at Bomberger: Students Protest Criticism • Rushes, Administration Meet Before Pledging • Editorial: Staff Members Defend Grizzly • USGA Notes • Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor Receives Support; Constructive Criticism Appreciated; Student Interest Sparked; Irresponsible Groups Cause Anger • Is Reaganomics a Reality? • Admissions Standards at Ursinus • President\u27s Corner • Happy Birthday to U • Talent Show Tonight • Occupational Hazards • Fighting Ursini Head to MACs Optimistically • Inconsistency Still Haunting Women\u27s Basketball • Gymnastics Ranked 13th • Badminton Team Tops Rosemont and Moravian • Lady Swimmers Boast 9-1 Record • Werley\u27s Record Speaks for Itselfhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1094/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, February 4, 1983

Trouble at Cutillo\u27s: Frats Earn Reputation as Animals • Drinking Concerns Richter • Economics Council Sponsors Entrepreneur-Related Forum • President\u27s Corner • Wismer Tries Again • Pfacelift at Pfahler • Bear Blades Burnished Beat Wilmington Twice • Serendipity Celebration Features Films • Writing Center Welcomes Students • Who\u27s Who in Who\u27s Who? • Commentary: Speak Up for Coed Housing • Didja Ever Wonder • Wrestlers Earn Split • Lewis on Wall Street • Disruptive Fans Cause Flare-up at Widener • Top Individual Efforts Mark Gymnastics Team • Interview: Chupein Named to All-League Team • Lady Hoops Still Struggling • Men\u27s Basketball Find Road a Bit Bumpy • Swimmers Maul Terrors of Western Marylandhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1092/thumbnail.jp

Telerehabilitation Initiated Early in Post-Stroke Recovery: A Feasibility Study

BackgroundEnhanced neural plasticity early after stroke suggests the potential to improve outcomes with intensive rehabilitation therapy. Most patients do not get such therapy, however, due to limited access, changing rehabilitation therapy settings, low therapy doses, and poor compliance.ObjectiveTo examine the feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of an established telerehabilitation (TR) program after stroke initiated during admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) and completed in the patient's home.MethodsParticipants with hemiparetic stroke admitted to an IRF received daily TR targeting arm motor function in addition to usual care. Treatment consisted of 36, 70-minute sessions (half supervised by a licensed therapist via videoconference), over a 6-week period, that included functional games, exercise videos, education, and daily assessments.ResultsSixteen participants of 19 allocated completed the intervention (age 61.3 ± 9.4 years; 6 female; baseline Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer [UEFM] score 35.9 ± 6.4 points, mean ± SD; NIHSS score 4 (3.75, 5.25), median, IQR; intervention commenced 28.3 ± 13.0 days post-stroke). Compliance was 100%, retention 84%, and patient satisfaction 93%; 2 patients developed COVID-19 and continued TR. Post-intervention UEFM improvement was 18.1 ± 10.9 points (P < .0001); Box and Blocks, 22.4 ± 9.8 blocks (P = .0001). Digital motor assessments, acquired daily in the home, were concordant with these gains. The dose of rehabilitation therapy received as usual care during this 6-week interval was 33.9 ± 20.3 hours; adding TR more than doubled this to 73.6 ± 21.8 hours (P < .0001). Patients enrolled in Philadelphia could be treated remotely by therapists in Los Angeles.ConclusionsThese results support feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of providing intense TR therapy early after stroke.Clinical trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov; NCT04657770

Wrist Proprioception in Adults with and without Subacute Stroke.

Proprioception is critical to motor control and functional status but has received limited study early after stroke. Patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility for stroke (n = 18, mean(±SD) 12.5 ± 6.6 days from stroke) and older healthy controls (n = 19) completed the Wrist Position Sense Test (WPST), a validated, quantitative measure of wrist proprioception, as well as motor and cognitive testing. Patients were serially tested when available (n = 12, mean 11 days between assessments). In controls, mean(±SD) WPST error was 9.7 ± 3.5° in the dominant wrist and 8.8 ± 3.8° in the nondominant wrist (p = 0.31). In patients with stroke, WPST error was 18.6 ± 9° in the more-affected wrist, with abnormal values present in 88.2%; and 11.5 ± 5.6° in the less-affected wrist, with abnormal values present in 72.2%. Error in the more-affected wrist was higher than in the less-affected wrist (p = 0.003) or in the dominant (p = 0.001) and nondominant (p < 0.001) wrist of controls. Age and BBT performance correlated with dominant hand WPST error in controls. WPST error in either wrist after stroke was not related to age, BBT, MoCA, or Fugl-Meyer scores. WPST error did not significantly change in retested patients. Wrist proprioception deficits are common, bilateral, and persistent in subacute stroke and not explained by cognitive or motor deficits

Wrist Proprioception in Adults with and without Subacute Stroke

Proprioception is critical to motor control and functional status but has received limited study early after stroke. Patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation facility for stroke (n = 18, mean(±SD) 12.5 ± 6.6 days from stroke) and older healthy controls (n = 19) completed the Wrist Position Sense Test (WPST), a validated, quantitative measure of wrist proprioception, as well as motor and cognitive testing. Patients were serially tested when available (n = 12, mean 11 days between assessments). In controls, mean(±SD) WPST error was 9.7 ± 3.5° in the dominant wrist and 8.8 ± 3.8° in the nondominant wrist (p = 0.31). In patients with stroke, WPST error was 18.6 ± 9° in the more-affected wrist, with abnormal values present in 88.2%; and 11.5 ± 5.6° in the less-affected wrist, with abnormal values present in 72.2%. Error in the more-affected wrist was higher than in the less-affected wrist (p = 0.003) or in the dominant (p = 0.001) and nondominant (p < 0.001) wrist of controls. Age and BBT performance correlated with dominant hand WPST error in controls. WPST error in either wrist after stroke was not related to age, BBT, MoCA, or Fugl-Meyer scores. WPST error did not significantly change in retested patients. Wrist proprioception deficits are common, bilateral, and persistent in subacute stroke and not explained by cognitive or motor deficits

The Utility of Domain-Specific End Points in Acute Stroke Trials

Domain-specific endpoints are assessments that correspond to the output of individual neural systems and are useful for capturing treatment effects on specific behaviors. By contrast, global endpoints combine several attributes into a single score and are useful for capturing broad treatment effects in a summary way. While global endpoints have become the de facto mechanism required to define benefit in stroke trials, they also have important limitations, some of which might be addressed by simultaneously measuring domain-specific endpoints. Substantial opportunity remains to identify quantifiable patient benefit that would otherwise not be captured by global endpoints. Potential advantages of incorporating domain-specific endpoints in acute stroke trials are discussed, such as increased granularity of measurement, improved understanding of how therapies affect the brain between acute treatment and day 90, and optimized therapeutic translation. Potential disadvantages are also considered, including time and cost of administering domain-specific endpoints, as well as statistical implications. Domain-specific endpoints and global endpoints are not mutually exclusive, and both capture clinical benefits to patients. Incorporating a broader set of outcome assessments in stroke trials, including both global and domain-specific endpoints, is warranted