doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000115937.94104.76
(Stroke. 2004;35:383.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.
Advances in Stroke 2003 |
What’s New in Stroke Rehabilitation
From Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.W.T.), St Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada; and Stroke Medicine (L.K.), GKT School of Medicine, King’s College Hospital, London, UK.
Correspondence to Dr. Robert Teasell, University of Western Ontario, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Parkwood Hospital, 801 Commissioners Rd E, London, Ontario, Canada N6C 5J1. E-mail robert.teasell{at}sjhc.london.on.ca
Key Words: Advances in Stroke • rehabilitation
Stroke rehabilitation has been revolutionized in the last decade through a combination of new imaging techniques looking at brain recovery and clinical trials into what is working in stroke rehabilitation. The fear that rehabilitation was a long way from being rooted in science1 has been overcome by an increasing understanding of neuronal recovery processes and their modulation by various physical and pharmacological interventions. More than 300 randomized controlled trials provide a sound foundation for evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation, supplementing and often confirming decades of clinical experience. This growing body of knowledge has been enriched by several studies in 2003. Advances in basic sciences and clinical research are beginning to merge and show that the human brain is capable of significant recovery after stroke, provided that the appropriate treatments and stimuli are applied in adequate amounts and at the right time. What is particularly exciting is the introductions of new technologies such as robotic enhancement of therapies and virtual reality to further enhance that recovery.
Intensity Versus Task-Specificity After Stroke
Stroke rehabilitation is therapy intensive and one of the unresolved debates has been around the issues of quality and quantity. Evidence is building that intensity of therapy is important. This is particularly true for language recovery. Bhogal et al2 identified 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared the intensity of speech and language therapy (SLT) delivered by a trained therapist versus a non-therapist or a non-SLT control. Four of the studies were positive and these studies provided a mean of 8.8 hours of therapy per week for 11.2 weeks when compared with the 4 negative trials that provide approximately 2 hours of therapy per week for a total of 22.9 weeks. On average, positive RCTs provided 98.4 hours of therapy over half the time that the negative RCTs provided 43.6 hours. Intensive therapy is required to achieve optimal speech outcomes and produce significant improvements in language. The picture is not as clear for physiotherapy and occupational therapy interventions, where recent studies have shown little benefit from "intensive" therapy on arm function3 or general functional abilities.4 However, the intensity of treatment provided in the active limb of these studies is a subject for debate. Evidence from the bulk of clinical and functional imaging studies suggest that more intense therapy over a shorter period of time provides a better outcome.
In addition to quantity, the quality of interventions is equally important. Evidence suggests that the nature of interventions is important. Little benefits were seen with treatments such as repetitive training or resistance strengthening exercises.5,6 On the other hand, task-specific therapy in which treatment is specifically designed to deal with lost abilities or tasks showed best results. An excellent example of this is left-sided neglect, where task-specific training (enhanced visual scanning techniques) improves visual neglect with associated improvements in function. Similarly, short periods of prism adaptation improve not only visual neglect for several days but also perception of contralateral tactile stimuli.7 Page,8 on reviewing the evidence in favor of less-intense, task-specific rehabilitation treatments, argued that intensity did not need to be altered to result in significant clinical improvements. This is supported by a recent study showing that increased used of the paretic hand recruited previously silent ipsilateral corticospinal pathways even in poorly recovered stroke patients.9 Hence, task-specific approaches, especially with stroke motor therapy, can be more efficacious than traditional approaches, which focus on impairment.
Robotic-Assisted Rehabilitation
In an attempt to supplement the use of therapists in providing a more intensive therapeutic environment, there has been increasing interest in the use of robotics in stroke rehabilitation. Volpe et al10 and Krebs et al11 have noted that robot-aided sensorimotor training, especially in the upper extremity, has been showing data consistent with other controlled studies that demonstrate that more activity leads to greater motor recovery12 and that such recovery is sustained over the long-term and is limb and muscle group specific. Fasoli et al13 actually showed that robotic therapy, which involved goal-directed planar reaching tasks to exercise the hemiparetic shoulder and elbow, reduced motor impairment in chronic stroke patients with moderate to severe impairments. Robotic devices provide a means by which therapists can increase the amount and intensity of movement of the plegic limb, allowing them to focus more time on more task-specific and complex functional movements. Lum et al14 has noted that efforts to bring these devices to the commercial market are underway. Similar albeit less complicated uses of computers to facilitate rehabilitation activities are becoming more commonplace.
Sensory Stimulation Facilitates Recovery
The importance of sensory stimulation in stimulating the brain and facilitating recovery has been shown with functional MRI and is likely the physiological underpinning for the use of acupuncture and TENS for facilitating motor recovery. Several modalities of sensory input (optokinetic, neck proprioceptive, vestibular, attentional, somatosensory-magnetic) have been investigated and shown to result in dramatic improvements in patients with neglect.15 There continues to be debate about the pathways involved; a recent study demonstrated that subconscious proprioceptive afferent information was as effective as exteroceptive somatosensory stimulation for improving hemispatial neglect, even when severe somatosensory loss was present.16 More intermittent pneumatic compression results in dramatically greater improvements in somatosensation.17
Virtual Reality and Motor Imagery
One of the newest potential therapies currently under study is virtual reality as a training tool in stroke rehabilitation. Virtual reality is computer technology that simulates real-life learning and allows for increased intensity of training while providing augmented sensory feedback.18
An even more interesting concept that is being used in rehabilitation is the concept of motor imagery, which is being incorporated into rehabilitation trials, particularly for motor retraining of hemiparetic limbs. It has been shown that motor imagery can result in increased functional MRI activity, a potential precursor of recovery. Stevens et al19 in 2 chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors used imagination and mirrors to trick patients’ brains into thinking that they were moving their arms and legs. Patients underwent intensive training utilizing motor imagery consisting of imagined wrist movements and mental stimulations of reaching and object manipulation using a mirror box whereby they move their unaffected limbs in a mirror but which appears like they are moving their affected limb. In addition, patients were told to imagine that they were moving their paralyzed limb. Patients who used this technique showed improvement in the motor function of the paretic limb.
Extended Therapy Helps Stroke Survivors Regain Mobility
Duncan et al20 found that a structured and progressive program of physical therapy in stroke survivors who were living in the community and had completed acute stroke rehabilitation allowed for continued improvements in lost mobility, balance, and endurance. The authors concluded that a home-based exercise program that was more aggressive than what is typically prescribed for stroke survivors who are discharged home can improve walking, balance, and cardiovascular endurance beyond that attributable to spontaneous recovery and usual care. More recently, a study in patients 6 months to 7 years after stroke showed that 12 hours of sensory or motor training significantly improved task-specific functional abilities.21 The concept that intensive therapy provides improved outcomes extends even into the outpatient phase of rehabilitation.
Home-Based Rehabilitation
Fjaertoft et al22 in a follow-up to a previous trial23 evaluated the long-term effects of an extended stroke unit service (ESUS). The ESUS consisted of stroke unit care with the addition of a mobile interdisciplinary team which coordinated early supported discharge and further rehabilitation in the home. Patients were randomized to stroke unit care or the ESUS and follow-up provided at 52 weeks. Although there were no significant differences in the Barthel Score or their final residence, more patients were deemed to be independent as measured by a Rankin score 
2. Patients with moderate to severe strokes seemed to benefit the most. Determinants of successful domiciliary rehabilitation include less disabled and younger patients, absence of cognitive impairments, premorbid functional status, and early initiation of rehabilitative procedures. Teng et al24 in a cost analysis of an earlier study25 reported that an early supported discharge program for high-functioning stroke patients was a cost-effective alternative to usual care. Disler and Wade26 have noted that the concept of early supported discharge remains a promising one and not surprisingly reduces hospital lengths of stay, but the available data do not yet support or condemn the practice and many questions remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the trend toward moving stroke rehabilitation into the community faster for certain patients is likely to continue.
Conclusions
This is an exciting time in stroke rehabilitation. There is a real sense in the research community that stroke rehabilitation is beginning to realize its potential and the concepts of intensity of therapy, task-specific training, and increased sensory stimulation are now being supported by strong scientific evidence. The potential for using technology to assist in the rehabilitation process is now beginning to be realized. There is also a trend toward moving interdisciplinary stroke rehabilitation increasingly out into the community. Although this decade began with the promise of thrombolytics, increasingly it appears that the future of stroke care will be with the refinement and improvement of rehabilitation therapies.
Footnotes
The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Stroke Association.
Received November 19, 2003; accepted December 3, 2003.
References
1. Pomeroy VM, Tallis RC. Physical therapy to improve movement performance and functional ability poststroke, I: existing evidence. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2000; 10: 261–290.[CrossRef]
2. Bhogal SK, Teasell R, Speechley M. Intensity of aphasia therapy, impact on recovery. Stroke. 2003; 34: 987–993.
3. Rodgers H, Mackintosh J, Price C, et al. Does an early increased-intensity interdisciplinary upper limb therapy programme following acute stroke improve outcome? Clin Rehabil. 2003; 17: 579–589.
4. Martinsson L, Eksborg S, Wahlgren NG. Intensive early physiotherapy combined with dexamphetamine treatment in severe stroke: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003; 16: 338–345.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Woldag H, Waldmann G, Heuschkel G, Hummelsheim H. Is the repetitive training of complex hand and arm movements beneficial for motor recovery in stroke patients? Clin Rehabil. 2003; 17: 723–730.
6. Moreland JD, Goldsmith CH, Huijbregts MP, et al. Progressive resistance strengthening exercises after stroke: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 1433–1440.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Rode G, Pisella L, Rossetti Y, Farne A, Boisson D. Bottom-up transfer of sensory-motor plasticity to recovery of spatial cognition: visuomotor adaptation and spatial neglect. Progr Brain Res. 2003; 142: 273–287.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Page SJ. Intensity versus task-specificity after stroke: how important is intensity? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: 730–732.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Papathanassiou I, Filipovic SR, Whurr R, Jahanshahi M. Plasticity of motor cortex excitability induced by rehabilitation therapy for writing. Neurology. 2003; 61: 977–980.
10. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation. Adv Neurol. 2003; 92: 429–433.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002; 8: 54–70.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Hesse S, Schulte-Tigges G, Konrad M, Bardeleben A, Werner C. Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 915–920.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 477–482.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Lum P, Reinkensmeyer D, Mahoney R, Rymer WZ, Burgar C. Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: current status and challenges to clinical acceptance. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002; 8: 40–53.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Kerkhoff G. Modulation and rehabilitation of spatial neglect by sensory stimulation. Prog Brain Res. 2003; 142: 257–271.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Lafosse C, Kerckhofs E, Troch M, Vandenbussche E. Upper limb exteroceptive somatosensory and proprioceptive sensory afferent modulation of hemispatial neglect. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2003; 25: 308–323.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Cambier DC, De Corte E, Danneels LA, Witvrouw EE. Treating sensory impairments in the post-stroke upper limb with intermittent pneumatic compression: results of a preliminary trial. Clin Rehabil. 2003; 17: 14–20.
18. Sisto SA, Forrest GF, Glendinning D. Virtual reality applications for motor rehabilitation after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002; 8: 11–23.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Stevens JA, Stoykov ME. Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 1090–1092.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Duncan P, Studenski S, Richards L, et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke. Stroke. 2003; 34: 2173–2180.
21. Byl NN. What can we learn from animal models of focal hand dystonia? Rev Neurol (Paris). 2003; 159: 857–873.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Fjaertoft H, Indredavik B, Lydersen S. Stroke unit care combined with early supported discharge: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2003; 34: 2687–2691.
23. Indredavik B, Fjaertoft H, Ekeberg G, Loge AD, Morch B. Benefit of an extended stroke unit service with early supported discharge: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke. 2000; 31: 2989–2994.
24. Teng J, Mayo NE, Latimer E, et al. Costs and caregiver consequences of early supported discharge for stroke patients. Stroke. 2003; 34: 528–536.
25. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R, et al. There’s no place like home: an evaluation of early supported discharge for stroke. Stroke. 2000; 31: 1016–1023.
26. Disler PB, Wade DT. Should all stroke rehabilitation be home based? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: 733–735.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M.C. Cirstea and M.F. Levin Improvement of Arm Movement Patterns and Endpoint Control Depends on Type of Feedback During Practice in Stroke Survivors Neurorehabil Neural Repair, October 1, 2007; 21(5): 398 - 411. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Weinrich, M. Stuart, and T. Hoyer Rules for Rehabilitation: An Agenda for Research Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 2005; 19(2): 72 - 83. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Stuart, C. Ryser, A. Levitt, S. Beer, J. Kesselring, S. Chard, and M. Weinrich Stroke Rehabilitation in Switzerland versus the United States: A Preliminary Comparison Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 2005; 19(2): 139 - 147. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||