Upper limb kinematics during the first year after stroke: the stroke arm longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg (SALGOT)

Gyrd Thrane, Katharina Stibrant Sunnerhagen, Margit Alt Murphy, Gyrd Thrane, Katharina Stibrant Sunnerhagen, Margit Alt Murphy

Abstract

Background: Reduction of compensation and improved movement quality indicate recovery after stroke. Since clinical measures alone are often inadequate to distinguish between behavioral recovery and compensation, kinematic analysis of functional tasks has been recommended.

Objective: To quantify longitudinal changes and residual deficits in movement performance and quality during the first year after stroke using kinematic analysis of drinking task.

Methods: A total of 56 participants with first ever stroke causing upper extremity impairment were extracted from a non-selected stroke unit cohort (Stroke Arm Longitudinal Study at the University of Gothenburg-SALGOT). Participants needed to able to perform the drinking task with the more-affected arm at least on 2 occasions out of 6 (3 days, 10 days, 4 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months) during the first year to be included. A cohort of 60 healthy individuals was used as reference. Longitudinal changes were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results: Movement time, number of movement units, peak angular velocity of the elbow, peak hand velocity, and trunk displacement improved significantly over the first 3 months with a peak at 6 months. Movement time and peak hand velocity reached levels comparable to healthy at 3 months, but number of movement units, peak elbow angular velocity, trunk displacement, and arm abduction remained different from healthy over the first year after stroke.

Conclusions: Even when the recovery patterns of kinematics follow the known nonlinear pattern, not all kinematic measures reach the levels in par with healthy controls at one year post stroke. Since the number of movement units, peak angular velocity, trunk displacement, and arm abduction remained impaired over the first year, they might be the most suited measures to distinguish behavioral recovery from compensation strategies.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials: NCT01115348. 4 May 2010. Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Kinematics; Motor impairment; Movement analysis; Recovery; Stroke; Upper extremity.

Conflict of interest statement

The Authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study inclusion process and the samples taken for analysis. SALGOT, Stroke Arm Longitudinal Study at the University of Gothenburg; FMA, Fugl-Meyer Assessment
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The effect of time on kinematic variables. A value of 100 represents the median result of the healthy participants. Higher values represent better motor function. Abbreviations: ABD, Arm abduction during drinking; MT, Total movement time; NMU, Number of movement units; TD, Trunk displacement; PEAV, peak angular velocity; PHV, Peak Hand Velocity; T2PHV, relative time to Peak Hand Velocity. The variables are shifted 1 point for better visualization

References

    1. Wade DT, Wood VA, Hewer RL. Recovery after stroke - the first 3 months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985;48(1):7–13.
    1. Guidetti S, Ytterberg C, Ekstam L, Johansson U, Eriksson G. Changes in the impact of stroke between 3 and 12 months post-stroke, assessed with the stroke impact scale. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(10):963–968.
    1. Ytterberg C, Dyback M, Bergstrom A, Guidetti S, Eriksson G. Perceived impact of stroke six years after onset, and changes in impact between one and six years. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49(8):637–643.
    1. Paanalahti M, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Arndt A, Sunnerhagen KS. Applying the comprehensive international classification of functioning, disability and health Core sets for stroke framework to stroke survivors living in the community. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(4):331–340.
    1. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor "recovery" and "compensation" mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):313–319.
    1. Carey LM, Polatajko HJ, Connor LT, Baum CM. Stroke rehabilitation: A learning perspective. In: Carey LM, editor. Stroke rehabilitation Insights from Neuroscience and Imaging. 1th ed. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2012.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37(9):2348–2353.
    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(1):13–31.
    1. Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K, Prevo AJ. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(8):357–364.
    1. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8(2):69–73.
    1. Mirbagheri MM, Rymer WZ. Time-course of changes in arm impairment after stroke: variables predicting motor recovery over 12 months. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(8):1507–1513.
    1. Thrane G, Alt Murphy M, Sunnerhagen KS. Recovery of kinematic arm function in well-performing people with subacute stroke: a longitudinal cohort study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(1):67.
    1. Kwakkel G, Van Wegen E, Burridge JH, Winstein CJ, van Dokkum L, Alt Murphy M, Levin MF, Krakauer JW. Standardized measurement of quality of upper limb movement after stroke: consensus-based core recommendations from the second stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2019;14(8):783–791.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Willen C, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(1):71–80.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Sunnerhagen KS, Johnels B, Willen C. Three-dimensional kinematic motion analysis of a daily activity drinking from a glass: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2006;3:18.
    1. van Kordelaar J, van Wegen E, Kwakkel G. Impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):338–344.
    1. van Dokkum L, Hauret I, Mottet D, Froger J, Metrot J, Laffont I. The contribution of kinematics in the assessment of upper limb motor recovery early after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(1):4–12.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Willen C, Sunnerhagen KS. Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(9):844–853.
    1. Thrane G, Sunnerhagen KS, Persson HC, Opheim A, Alt Murphy M. Kinematic upper extremity performance in people with near or fully recovered sensorimotor function after stroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018:1–11.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Murphy S, Persson HC, Bergström U-B, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic analysis using 3D motion capture of drinking task in people with and without upper-extremity impairments. JoVE. 2018;133:e57228.
    1. Brott T, Adams HP, Jr, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, Spilker J, Holleran R, Eberle R, Hertzberg V, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20(7):864–870.
    1. Lyden PD, Lu M, Levine SR, Brott TG, Broderick J. A modified National Institutes of Health stroke scale for use in stroke clinical trials: preliminary reliability and validity. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1310–1317.
    1. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In., 3.5.2 edn. Vienna 2018.
    1. Holm S. A simple sequentially Rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6(2):65–70.
    1. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S: Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. 2015 2015, 67(‘):48.
    1. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Bioml J. 2008;50(3):346–363.
    1. Buma FE, van Kordelaar J, Raemaekers M, van Wegen EE, Ramsey NF, Kwakkel G. Brain activation is related to smoothness of upper limb movements after stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2016;234(7):2077–2089.
    1. Hussain N, Sunnerhagen KS, Alt Murphy M. End-point kinematics using virtual reality explaining upper limb impairment and activity capacity in stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16(1):82.
    1. McCrea PH, Eng JJ, Hodgson AJ. Biomechanics of reaching: clinical implications for individuals with acquired brain injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(10):534–541.
    1. Thielman GT, Dean CM, Gentile AM. Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: task-related training versus progressive resistive exercise. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(10):1613–1618.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Banina MC, Levin MF. Perceptuo-motor planning during functional reaching after stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235(11):3295–3306.
    1. Lum PS, Patten C, Kothari D, Yap R. Effects of velocity on maximal torque production in poststroke hemiparesis. Muscle Nerve. 2004;30(6):732–742.
    1. Gowland C. deBruin H, Basmajian JV, Plews N, Burcea I: agonist and antagonist activity during voluntary upper-limb movement in patients with stroke. Phys Ther. 1992;72(9):624–633.
    1. el-Abd MA, Ibrahim IK, Dietz V. Impaired activation pattern in antagonistic elbow muscles of patients with spastic hemiparesis: contribution to movement disorder. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;33(4):247–255.
    1. Hammond MC, Fitts SS, Kraft GH, Nutter PB, Trotter MJ, Robinson LM. Co-contraction in the hemiparetic forearm: quantitative EMG evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(5):348–351.
    1. Fellows SJ, Kaus C, Thilmann AF. Voluntary movement at the elbow in spastic hemiparesis. Ann Neurol. 1994;36(3):397–407.
    1. Levin MF, Selles RW, Verheul MHG, Meijer OG. Deficits in the coordination of agonist and antagonist muscles in stroke patients: implications for normal motor control. Brain Res. 2000;853(2):352–369.
    1. Gray V, Rice CL, Garland SJ. Factors that influence muscle weakness following stroke and their clinical implications: a critical review. Physiother Can. 2012;64(4):415–426.
    1. Cortes JC, Goldsmith J, Harran MD, Xu J, Kim N, Schambra HM, Luft AR, Celnik P, Krakauer JW, Kitago T. A short and distinct time window for recovery of arm motor control early after stroke revealed with a global measure of trajectory kinematics. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(6):552–560.
    1. Mandon L, Boudarham J, Robertson J, Bensmail D, Roche N, Roby-Brami A. Faster reaching in chronic spastic stroke patients comes at the expense of arm-trunk coordination. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(3):209–220.
    1. Roby-Brami A, Fuchs S, Mokhtari M, Bussel B. Reaching and grasping strategies in hemiparetic patients. Mot Control. 1997;1(72):91.
    1. Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123(5):940–953.
    1. Archambault P, Pigeon P, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Exp Brain Res. 1999;126(1):55–67.
    1. Aprile I, Rabuffetti M, Padua L, Di Sipio E, Simbolotti C, Ferrarin M. Kinematic analysis of the upper limb motor strategies in stroke patients as a tool towards advanced neurorehabilitation strategies: a preliminary study. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:636123.
    1. Beer RF, Ellis MD, Holubar BG, Dewald JP. Impact of gravity loading on post-stroke reaching and its relationship to weakness. Muscle Nerve. 2007;36(2):242–250.
    1. Cirstea MC, Mitnitski AB, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2003;151(3):289–300.
    1. Takahashi CD, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement. Exp Brain Res. 2003;149(2):131–140.
    1. Sukal TM, Ellis MD, Dewald JPA. Shoulder abduction-induced reductions in reaching work area following hemiparetic stroke: neuroscientific implications. Exp Brain Res. 2007;183(2):215–223.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever