Functional differences in upper limb movement after early and chronic stroke based on kinematic motion indicators.

AIMS The main purpose of this study was to determine the changes in kinematic parameters of ischemic stroke affected upper limbs, during simple functional activity, to determine the most relevant changes. METHODS The OptiTrack system was used for motion capture. To determine upper extremity function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) tasks. During particular phases, the following matrices were chosen: mean and peak speed, normalized movement unit, normalized jerk and phase movement time. The chosen matrices represent the speed and smoothness profile of end-point data. The the arm-trunk compensation was also taken into consideration. Twenty stroke patients, in early (G1 from 1 to 3 months after stroke) and chronic stage (G2 from 6 months to 1 year), were studied. The large and small cylinder forward and back transporting phases were evaluated. RESULTS The most significant differences between groups G1 and G2 were in mean and peak speed of the forward transport of the large and small cylinders for the paretic limb. Significant differences were also found for the smoothness (measured by movement unit, mean and peak speed and jerk) where the G2 group had a rougher motion. There were also differences in arm-trunk compensation in the frontal plane. CONCLUSION The variables used in the study showed applicability in assessing kinematic parameters in both the early and chronic period after stroke.

[1]  P. Clark,et al.  Factors Influencing Stroke Survivors' Quality of Life During Subacute Recovery , 2005, Stroke.

[2]  Diego Torricelli,et al.  Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: A review. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.

[3]  G. Stelmach,et al.  Parkinsonism Reduces Coordination of Fingers, Wrist, and Arm in Fine Motor Control , 1997, Experimental Neurology.

[4]  S. Micera,et al.  Model-based variables for the kinematic assessment of upper-extremity impairments in post-stroke patients , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[5]  G. Fink,et al.  Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function , 2014, The Lancet Neurology.

[6]  P. Bach-y-Rita,et al.  Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  N. Hogan,et al.  Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  John P Scholz,et al.  Aspects of joint coordination are preserved during pointing in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[9]  S. Kantak,et al.  Goal conceptualization and symmetry of arm movements affect bimanual coordination in individuals after stroke , 2016, Neuroscience Letters.

[10]  Loredana Zollo,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of upper-limb motor control in robot-aided rehabilitation , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[11]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Kinematic measures for upper limb robot-assisted therapy following stroke and correlations with clinical outcome measures: A review. , 2018, Medical engineering & physics.

[12]  N. Hogan.  An organizing principle for a class of voluntary movements , 1984, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[13]  Ahmet H. Ertas,et al.  A clinically feasible kinematic assessment method of upper extremity motor function impairment after stroke , 2016 .

[14]  Amr Kamel,et al.  Health Related Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors Measured by the Stroke Impact Scale , 2010 .

[15]  A. Prevo,et al.  The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. , 1999, Disability and rehabilitation.

[16]  Fong-Chin Su,et al.  Kinematical measure for spastic reaching in children with cerebral palsy. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[17]  Subashan Perera,et al.  Persisting Consequences of Stroke Measured by the Stroke Impact Scale , 2002, Stroke.

[18]  L. Richards,et al.  Reliability of Upper Extremity Kinematics While Performing Different Tasks in Individuals With Stroke , 2011, Journal of motor behavior.

[19]  A. Beelen,et al.  Beyond disability: perceived participation in people with a chronic disabling condition , 2002, Clinical rehabilitation.

[20]  Ann Johansson,et al.  Activities of daily living among St Petersburg women after mild stroke. , 2007, Occupational therapy international.

[21]  V. Feigin,et al.  Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 , 2014, The Lancet.

[22]  Loredana Zollo,et al.  Patient-tailored adaptive robotic system for upper-limb rehabilitation , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[23]  K. Sunnerhagen,et al.  Kinematic Variables Quantifying Upper-Extremity Performance After Stroke During Reaching and Drinking From a Glass , 2011, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[24]  P. Langhorne,et al.  Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review , 2009, The Lancet Neurology.

[25]  K. Sunnerhagen,et al.  Responsiveness of Upper Extremity Kinematic Measures and Clinical Improvement During the First Three Months After Stroke , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[26]  Kaat Desloovere,et al.  The Arm Profile Score: A new summary index to assess upper limb movement pathology. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[27]  C. Lang,et al.  Comparison of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Upper Extremity Task Performance After Stroke , 2012, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.