Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Calabro RS, Naro A, Russo M, Milardi D, Leo A, Filoni S, Trinchera A, Bramanti P
PLoS ONE 2017 Oct;12(10):e0185936
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

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 (ClinicalTrials.gov 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 (2pif)2A, where f is the frequency of MV and A is the amplitude. Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and Hmax/Mmax 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.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help