SENSory re-learning of the UPPer limb after stroke (SENSUPP): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Håkan Carlsson, Birgitta Rosén, Hélène Pessah-Rasmussen, Anders Björkman, Christina Brogårdh, Håkan Carlsson, Birgitta Rosén, Hélène Pessah-Rasmussen, Anders Björkman, Christina Brogårdh

Abstract

Background: Many stroke survivors suffer from sensory impairments of their affected upper limb (UL). Although such impairments can affect the ability to use the UL in everyday activities, very little attention is paid to sensory impairments in stroke rehabilitation. The purpose of this trial is to investigate if sensory re-learning in combination with task-specific training may prove to be more effective than task-specific training alone to improve sensory function of the hand, dexterity, the ability to use the hand in daily activities, perceived participation, and life satisfaction.

Methods/design: This study is a single-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two treatment arms. The participants will be randomly assigned either to sensory re-learning in combination with task-specific training (sensory group) or to task-specific training only (control group). The training will consist of 2.5 h of group training per session, 2 times per week for 5 weeks. The primary outcome measures to assess sensory function are as follows: Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, Shape/Texture Identification (STI™) test, Fugl-Meyer Assessment-upper extremity (FMA-UE; sensory section), and tactile object identification test. The secondary outcome measures to assess motor function are as follows: Box and Block Test (BBT), mini Sollerman Hand Function Test (mSHFT), Modified Motor Assessment Scale (M-MAS), and Grippit. To assess the ability to use the hand in daily activities, perceived participation, and life satisfaction, the Motor Activity Log (MAL), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) participation domain, and Life Satisfaction checklist will be used. Assessments will be performed pre- and post-training and at 3-month follow-up by independent assessors, who are blinded to the participants' group allocation. At the 3-month follow-up, the participants in the sensory group will also be interviewed about their general experience of the training and how effective they perceived the training.

Discussion: The results from this study can add new knowledge about the effectiveness of sensory re-learning in combination with task-specific training on UL functioning after stroke. If the new training approach proves efficient, the results can provide information on how to design a larger RCT in the future in persons with sensory impairments of the UL after stroke.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03336749 . Registered on 8 November 2017.

Keywords: Rehabilitation; Sensory re-learning; Stroke; Upper limb.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Prior to inclusion in the study, all participants will receive verbal and written information, and signed written informed consent will be required to participate. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Lund Sweden (Dnr 2017/7). The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki will be adhered to.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
SPIRIT figure of enrollment, interventions, and outcome measures. Abbreviations: SWM Semmes-Weinstein monofilament, STITM Shape/Texture Identification, FMA-UE Fugl-Meyer Assessment—upper extremity, BBT Box and Block Test, mSHFT mini Sollerman Hand Function Test, M-MAS Modified Motor Assessment Scale, MAL Motor Activity Log, COPM Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, SIS Stroke Impact Scale

References

    1. World Health Organization. Stroke/cerebrovascular accident. . Accessed 27 Nov 2017.
    1. Connell LA, Lincoln NB, Radford KA. Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22:758–767. doi: 10.1177/0269215508090674.
    1. Carey LM, Matyas TA. Frequency of discriminative sensory loss in the hand after stroke in a rehabilitation setting. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:257–263. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0662.
    1. Tyson SF, Hanley M, Chillala J, Selley AB, Tallis RC. Sensory loss in hospital-admitted people with stroke: characteristics, associated factors, and relationship with function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:166–172. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305523.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22:281–299.
    1. Patel AT, Duncan PW, Lai SM, Studenski S. The relation between impairments and functional outcomes poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:1357–1363. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2000.9397.
    1. Scalha TB, Miyasaki E, Lima NM, Borges G. Correlations between motor and sensory functions in upper limb chronic hemiparetics after stroke. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2011;69:624–629. doi: 10.1590/S0004-282X2011000500010.
    1. Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, Langhorne P, Mead GE, Mehrholz J, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:Cd010820. 10.1002/14651858.CD010820.pub2.
    1. Doyle SD, Bennett S, Dudgeon B. Upper limb post-stroke sensory impairments: the survivor’s experience. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:993–1000. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2013.825649.
    1. Carlsson H, Gard G, Brogardh C. Upper-limb sensory impairments after stroke: self-reported experiences of daily life and rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2018;50:45–51. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2282.
    1. Connell LA, McMahon NE, Adams N. Stroke survivors’ experiences of somatosensory impairment after stroke: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Physiotherapy. 2014;100:150–155. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2013.09.003.
    1. Doyle S, Bennett S, Gustafsson L. Clinical decision making when addressing upper limb post-stroke sensory impairments. Br J Occup Ther. 2013;76:254–263. doi: 10.4276/030802213X13706169932789.
    1. Pumpa LU, Cahill LS, Carey LM. Somatosensory assessment and treatment after stroke: an evidence-practice gap. Aust Occup Ther J. 2015;62:93–104. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12170.
    1. Doyle S, Bennett S, Fasoli SE, McKenna KT. Interventions for sensory impairment in the upper limb after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:Cd006331. 10.1002/14651858.CD006331.pub2.
    1. Schabrun SM, Hillier S. Evidence for the retraining of sensation after stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:27–39. doi: 10.1177/0269215508098897.
    1. Kessner SS, Bingel U, Thomalla G. Somatosensory deficits after stroke: a scoping review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23:136–146. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2015.1116822.
    1. Yekutiel M, Guttman E. A controlled trial of the retraining of the sensory function of the hand in stroke patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1993;56:241–244. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.56.3.241.
    1. Carey LM, Matyas TA, Oke LE. Sensory loss in stroke patients: effective training of tactile and proprioceptive discrimination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:602–611. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(93)90158-7.
    1. Carey L, Macdonell R, Matyas TA. SENSe: Study of the Effectiveness of Neurorehabilitation on Sensation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:304–313. doi: 10.1177/1545968310397705.
    1. Smania N, Montagnana B, Faccioli S, Fiaschi A, Aglioti SM. Rehabilitation of somatic sensation and related deficit of motor control in patients with pure sensory stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1692–1702. doi: 10.1053/S0003-9993(03)00277-6.
    1. Byl N, Roderick J, Mohamed O, Hanny M, Kotler J, Smith A, et al. Effectiveness of sensory and motor rehabilitation of the upper limb following the principles of neuroplasticity: patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:176–191. doi: 10.1177/0888439003257137.
    1. Teasell RW, Foley NC, Salter KL, Jutai JW. A blueprint for transforming stroke rehabilitation care in Canada: the case for change. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.08.164.
    1. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks E, Rietberg M, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087987.
    1. Carey LM, Lamp G, Turville M. The state-of-the-science on somatosensory function and its impact on daily life in adults and older adults, and following stroke: a scoping review. OTJR (Thorofare N J) 2016;36:27–41.
    1. Ekstrand E, Lexell J, Brogardh C. Test-retest reliability of the Shape/Texture Identification test™ in people with chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30:1120–1127. doi: 10.1177/0269215515608512.
    1. Rosén B, Lundborg G. Sensory re-education. In: Terri M, Skirven O, Osterman A, Fedorczyk J, Amadio P, editors. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. 6. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2011. pp. 634–645.
    1. Jerosch-Herold C. Sensory relearning in peripheral nerve disorders of the hand: a Web-based survey and Delphi consensus method. J Hand Ther. 2011;24:292–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2011.05.002.
    1. Santisteban L, Teremetz M, Bleton JP, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154792.
    1. Weinstein S. Fifty years of somatosensory research. J Hand Ther. 1993;6:11–22. doi: 10.1016/S0894-1130(12)80176-1.
    1. Borstad AL, Bird T, Choi S, Goodman L, Schmalbrock P, Nichols-Larsen DS. Sensorimotor training and neural reorganization after stroke: a case series. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2013;37:27–36. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e318283de0d.
    1. Rosén B, Lundborg G. A new tactile gnosis instrument in sensibility testing. J Hand Ther. 1998;11:251–257. doi: 10.1016/S0894-1130(98)80020-3.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
    1. Connell LA, Tyson SF. Measures of sensation in neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26:68–80. doi: 10.1177/0269215511412982.
    1. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39:386–391. doi: 10.5014/ajot.39.6.386.
    1. Ekstrand E, Lexell J, Brogardh C. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of three manual dexterity measures in persons with chronic stroke. PM R. 2016;8:935–943. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.02.014.
    1. Sollerman C, Ejeskar A. Sollerman hand function test. A standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29:167–176. doi: 10.3109/02844319509034334.
    1. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1985;65:175–180. doi: 10.1093/ptj/65.2.175.
    1. Arnell M, Sigge L, Westlin C, Lindmark B. Vidareutveckling och reliabilitetsprovning av modifierad Motor Assessment Scale enligt Uppsala Akademiska Sjukhus. Sjukgymnasten. 1996;12:32–37.
    1. Ekstrand E, Lexell J, Brogardh C. Isometric and isokinetic muscle strength in the upper extremity can be reliably measured in persons with chronic stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47:706–713. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1990.
    1. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology. 2006;67:1189–1194. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000238164.90657.c2.
    1. Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, Opzoomer A, Polatajko H, Pollock N. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57:82–87. doi: 10.1177/000841749005700207.
    1. Cup EH, Scholte op Reimer WJ, Thijssen MC, van Kuyk-Minis MA. Reliability and validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:402–409. doi: 10.1191/0269215503cr635oa.
    1. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–2140. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.30.10.2131.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Melin R, Fugl-Meyer KS. Life satisfaction in 18- to 64-year-old Swedes: in relation to gender, age, partner and immigrant status. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:239–246. doi: 10.1080/165019702760279242.
    1. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF; 2001. . Accessed 24 Oct 2017.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner