Changes of elbow kinematics and kinetics during 1 year after stroke

A precise description of the natural history of motor recovery after stroke provides a framework for understanding the mechanisms underlying this improvement and for tracking the efficacy of rehabilitation treatments. To characterize the time course of this change in motor impairment, we examined voluntary elbow movements in hemiparetic stroke survivors over a period of 1 year after stroke. Based on the possibility that both central nervous system and muscle factors could contribute to the observed clinical state, we hypothesized that we should observe at least two major recovery patterns of motor impairment. To explore these predictions, we assessed elbow movement range, movement speed, and isometric force generation. Subjects were examined five times over the 12‐month period. We used the “growth mixture” model to characterize recovery of these measures, and the Fugl‐Meyer scale (FMS) of upper‐extremity function at 1 month to predict the recovery. We observed two distinct recovery classes. Class 1 started with low values for the physiological measures, and these increased over time, whereas class 2 tended to start with higher values and showed widely divergent recovery patterns. Using the logistic regression model, the impact of FMS on class membership was estimated for each parameter. Based on these data, we were able to accurately predict arm impairment recovery at different time‐points in the first year, information of great potential value for planning targeted therapeutic interventions. Muscle Nerve, 2008

[1]  Nikolai Bogduk,et al.  Outcome research. , 2007, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[2]  S. Gilman Time course and outcome of recovery from stroke: Relevance to stem cell treatment , 2006, Experimental Neurology.

[3]  B. Ashworth PRELIMINARY TRIAL OF CARISOPRODOL IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS. , 1964, The Practitioner.

[4]  Derick T Wade,et al.  Somatosensory recovery: A longitudinal study of the first 6 months after unilateral stroke , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation.

[5]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Examining developmental trajectories in adolescent alcohol use using piecewise growth mixture modeling analysis. , 2001, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[6]  A. Geurts,et al.  Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  Gert Kwakkel,et al.  Impact of Time on Improvement of Outcome After Stroke , 2006, Stroke.

[8]  Cécile Proust-Lima,et al.  A nonlinear latent class model for joint analysis of multivariate longitudinal data and a binary outcome , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  AD Pandyan,et al.  Spasticity: Clinical perceptions, neurological realities and meaningful measurement , 2005, Disability and rehabilitation.

[10]  G. E. Gresham Stroke outcome research. , 1986, Stroke.

[11]  T. Olsen,et al.  Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  N. Hogan,et al.  Movement Smoothness Changes during Stroke Recovery , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  R. Young Spasticity: A review , 1994, Neurology.

[14]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[15]  Pamela W. Duncan,et al.  Similar Motor Recovery of Upper and Lower Extremities After Stroke , 1994, Stroke.

[16]  P. Duncan,et al.  Measurement of Motor Recovery After Stroke: Outcome Assessment and Sample Size Requirements , 1992, Stroke.

[17]  Mehdi M Mirbagheri,et al.  Upper limb impairments associated with spasticity in neurological disorders , 2007, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[18]  Bengt Muthén,et al.  Latent Variable Analysis: Growth Mixture Modeling and Related Techniques for Longitudinal Data , 2004 .

[19]  M. Newman The Process of Recovery: After Hemiplegia , 1972, Stroke.