Cargando…
Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Even though robotic rehabilitation is very useful to improve motor function, there is no conclusive evidence on its role in reducing post-stroke spasticity. Focal muscle vibration (MV) is instead very useful to reduce segmental spasticity, with a consequent positive effect on motor function. Therefo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5626518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28973024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185936 |
_version_ | 1783268561752424448 |
---|---|
author | Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Naro, Antonino Russo, Margherita Milardi, Demetrio Leo, Antonino Filoni, Serena Trinchera, Antonia Bramanti, Placido |
author_facet | Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Naro, Antonino Russo, Margherita Milardi, Demetrio Leo, Antonino Filoni, Serena Trinchera, Antonia Bramanti, Placido |
author_sort | Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore |
collection | PubMed |
description | Even though robotic rehabilitation is very useful to improve motor function, there is no conclusive evidence on its role in reducing post-stroke spasticity. Focal muscle vibration (MV) is instead very useful to reduce segmental spasticity, with a consequent positive effect on motor function. Therefore, it could be possible to strengthen the effects of robotic rehabilitation by coupling MV. To this end, we designed a pilot randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trial NCT03110718) that included twenty patients suffering from unilateral post-stroke upper limb spasticity. Patients underwent 40 daily sessions of Armeo-Power training (1 hour/session, 5 sessions/week, for 8 weeks) with or without spastic antagonist MV. They were randomized into two groups of 10 individuals, which received (group-A) or not (group-B) MV. The intensity of MV, represented by the peak acceleration (a-peak), was calculated by the formula (2πf)2A, where f is the frequency of MV and A is the amplitude. Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and H(max)/M(max) ratio (HMR) were the primary outcomes measured before and after (immediately and 4 weeks later) the end of the treatment. In all patients of group-A, we observed a greater reduction of MAS (p = 0.007, d = 0.6) and HMR (p<0.001, d = 0.7), and a more evident increase of SICI (p<0.001, d = 0.7) up to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment, as compared to group-B. Likewise, group-A showed a greater function outcome of upper limb (Functional Independence Measure p = 0.1, d = 0.7; Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity p = 0.007, d = 0.4) up to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. A significant correlation was found between the degree of MAS reduction and SICI increase in the agonist spastic muscles (p = 0.004). Our data show that this combined rehabilitative approach could be a promising option in improving upper limb spasticity and motor function. We could hypothesize that the greater rehabilitative outcome improvement may depend on a reshape of corticospinal plasticity induced by a sort of associative plasticity between Armeo-Power and MV. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5626518 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56265182017-10-17 Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Naro, Antonino Russo, Margherita Milardi, Demetrio Leo, Antonino Filoni, Serena Trinchera, Antonia Bramanti, Placido PLoS One Research Article Even though robotic rehabilitation is very useful to improve motor function, there is no conclusive evidence on its role in reducing post-stroke spasticity. Focal muscle vibration (MV) is instead very useful to reduce segmental spasticity, with a consequent positive effect on motor function. Therefore, it could be possible to strengthen the effects of robotic rehabilitation by coupling MV. To this end, we designed a pilot randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trial NCT03110718) that included twenty patients suffering from unilateral post-stroke upper limb spasticity. Patients underwent 40 daily sessions of Armeo-Power training (1 hour/session, 5 sessions/week, for 8 weeks) with or without spastic antagonist MV. They were randomized into two groups of 10 individuals, which received (group-A) or not (group-B) MV. The intensity of MV, represented by the peak acceleration (a-peak), was calculated by the formula (2πf)2A, where f is the frequency of MV and A is the amplitude. Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and H(max)/M(max) ratio (HMR) were the primary outcomes measured before and after (immediately and 4 weeks later) the end of the treatment. In all patients of group-A, we observed a greater reduction of MAS (p = 0.007, d = 0.6) and HMR (p<0.001, d = 0.7), and a more evident increase of SICI (p<0.001, d = 0.7) up to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment, as compared to group-B. Likewise, group-A showed a greater function outcome of upper limb (Functional Independence Measure p = 0.1, d = 0.7; Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity p = 0.007, d = 0.4) up to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. A significant correlation was found between the degree of MAS reduction and SICI increase in the agonist spastic muscles (p = 0.004). Our data show that this combined rehabilitative approach could be a promising option in improving upper limb spasticity and motor function. We could hypothesize that the greater rehabilitative outcome improvement may depend on a reshape of corticospinal plasticity induced by a sort of associative plasticity between Armeo-Power and MV. Public Library of Science 2017-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5626518/ /pubmed/28973024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185936 Text en © 2017 Calabrò et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore Naro, Antonino Russo, Margherita Milardi, Demetrio Leo, Antonino Filoni, Serena Trinchera, Antonia Bramanti, Placido Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial |
title | Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | is two better than one? muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: a pilot randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5626518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28973024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185936 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT calabroroccosalvatore istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT naroantonino istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT russomargherita istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT milardidemetrio istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leoantonino istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT filoniserena istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT trincheraantonia istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT bramantiplacido istwobetterthanonemusclevibrationplusroboticrehabilitationtoimproveupperlimbspasticityandfunctionapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial |