Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2024
Post-Stroke Impairments of Manual Dexterity and Finger Proprioception: Their Contribution to Upper Limb Activity Capacity.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Ravestyn Coralie, Gerardin Eloïse, Térémetz Maxime, Hamdoun Sonia, Baron Jean-Claude, Calvet David, Vandermeeren Yves, Turc Guillaume, Maier Marc A, Rosso Charlotte, Mas Jean-Louis, Dupin Lucile, Lindberg Påvel G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Knowing how impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception affect upper limb activity capacity is important for delineating targeted post-stroke interventions for upper limb recovery.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain variance in post-stroke activity capacity, and whether they explain more variance than conventional clinical assessments of upper limb sensorimotor impairments.
METHODS: Activity capacity and hand sensorimotor impairments were assessed using clinical measures in N = 42 late subacute/chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Dexterity was evaluated using the Dextrain Manipulandum to quantify accuracy of visuomotor finger force-tracking (N = 36), timing of rhythmic tapping (N = 36), and finger individuation (N = 24), as well as proprioception (N = 27). Stepwise multivariate and hierarchical linear regression models were used to identify impairments best explaining activity capacity.
RESULTS: Dexterity and proprioceptive components significantly increased the variance explained in activity capacity: (i) Box and Block Test was best explained by baseline tonic force during force-tracking and tapping frequency (adjusted R2 = .51); (ii) Motor Activity Log was best explained by success rate in finger individuation (adjusted R2 = .46); (iii) Action Research Arm Test was best explained by release of finger force and proprioceptive measures (improved reaction time related to use of proprioception; adjusted R2 = .52); and (iv) Moberg Pick-Up test was best explained by proprioceptive function (adjusted R2 = .18). Models excluding dexterity and proprioception variables explained up to 19% less variance.
CONCLUSIONS: Manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain unique variance in activity capacity not captured by conventional impairment measures and should be assessed when considering the underlying causes of post-stroke activity capacity limitations.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03934073.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain variance in post-stroke activity capacity, and whether they explain more variance than conventional clinical assessments of upper limb sensorimotor impairments.
METHODS: Activity capacity and hand sensorimotor impairments were assessed using clinical measures in N = 42 late subacute/chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Dexterity was evaluated using the Dextrain Manipulandum to quantify accuracy of visuomotor finger force-tracking (N = 36), timing of rhythmic tapping (N = 36), and finger individuation (N = 24), as well as proprioception (N = 27). Stepwise multivariate and hierarchical linear regression models were used to identify impairments best explaining activity capacity.
RESULTS: Dexterity and proprioceptive components significantly increased the variance explained in activity capacity: (i) Box and Block Test was best explained by baseline tonic force during force-tracking and tapping frequency (adjusted R2 = .51); (ii) Motor Activity Log was best explained by success rate in finger individuation (adjusted R2 = .46); (iii) Action Research Arm Test was best explained by release of finger force and proprioceptive measures (improved reaction time related to use of proprioception; adjusted R2 = .52); and (iv) Moberg Pick-Up test was best explained by proprioceptive function (adjusted R2 = .18). Models excluding dexterity and proprioception variables explained up to 19% less variance.
CONCLUSIONS: Manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain unique variance in activity capacity not captured by conventional impairment measures and should be assessed when considering the underlying causes of post-stroke activity capacity limitations.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03934073.