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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Calabrò, Rocco Salvatore, Naro, Antonino, Russo, Margherita, Milardi, Demetrio, Leo, Antonino, Filoni, Serena, Trinchera, Antonia, Bramanti, Placido
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