SALGOT--Stroke Arm Longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg, prospective cohort study protocol

Margit Alt Murphy, Hanna C Persson, Anna Danielsson, Jurgen Broeren, Asa Lundgren-Nilsson, Katharina S Sunnerhagen, Margit Alt Murphy, Hanna C Persson, Anna Danielsson, Jurgen Broeren, Asa Lundgren-Nilsson, Katharina S Sunnerhagen

Abstract

Background: Recovery patterns of upper extremity motor function have been described in several longitudinal studies, but most of these studies have had selected samples, short follow up times or insufficient outcomes on motor function. The general understanding is that improvements in upper extremity occur mainly during the first month after the stroke incident and little if any, significant recovery can be gained after 3-6 months. The purpose of this study is to describe the recovery of upper extremity function longitudinally in a non-selected sample initially admitted to a stroke unit with first ever stroke, living in Gothenburg urban area.

Methods/design: A sample of 120 participants with a first-ever stroke and impaired upper extremity function will be consecutively included from an acute stroke unit and followed longitudinally for one year. Assessments are performed at eight occasions: at day 3 and 10, week 3, 4 and 6, month 3, 6 and 12 after onset of stroke. The primary clinical outcome measures are Action Research Arm Test and Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity. As additional measures, two new computer based objective methods with kinematic analysis of arm movements are used. The ABILHAND questionnaire of manual ability, Stroke Impact Scale, grip strength, spasticity, pain, passive range of motion and cognitive function will be assessed as well. At one year follow up, two patient reported outcomes, Impact on Participation and Autonomy and EuroQol Quality of Life Scale, will be added to cover the status of participation and aspects of health related quality of life.

Discussion: This study comprises a non-selected population with first ever stroke and impaired arm function. Measurements are performed both using traditional clinical assessments as well as computer based measurement systems providing objective kinematic data. The ICF classification of functioning, disability and health is used as framework for the selection of assessment measures. The study design with several repeated measurements on motor function will give us more confident information about the recovery patterns after stroke. This knowledge is essential both for optimizing rehabilitation planning as well as providing important information to the patient about the recovery perspectives.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01115348.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Outcome measures used in SALGOT study according to ICF classification.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Setup of kinematic 5-camera motion capture system for the drinking task. Participant is presented with the right arm in initial position, and marker sites are shown as black dots.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Participant is performing the VR-test. The VR equipment consists of a semi-immersive workbench with haptic device and stereoscopic glasses.

References

    1. Riks-Stroke. Årsrapport 2009. The Swedish Stroke register. [cited 2011-01-26]
    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. doi: 10.1080/096382899297459.
    1. Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(4):394–398. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90161-9.
    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. Feys HM, De Weerdt WJ, Selz BE, Cox Steck GA, Spichiger R, Vereeck LE, Putman KD, Van Hoydonck GA. Effect of a therapeutic intervention for the hemiplegic upper limb in the acute phase after stroke: a single-blind, randomized, controlled multicenter trial. Stroke. 1998;29(4):785–792.
    1. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors' quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1480–1484. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f.
    1. Carr J, Shepherd RB. Neurological rehabilitation, optimizing motor performance. Oxford: Butterwrth, Heineman; 1998.
    1. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354(9174):191–196. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09477-X.
    1. Williams BK, Galea MP, Winter AT. What is the functional outcome for the upper limb after stroke? Aust J Physiother. 2001;47(1):19–27.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3-5):281–299.
    1. Dobkin BH. Confounders in rehabilitation trials of task-oriented training: lessons from the designs of the EXCITE and SCILT multicenter trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(1):3–13. doi: 10.1177/1545968306297329.
    1. Hendricks HT, van Limbeek J, Geurts AC, Zwarts MJ. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(11):1629–1637. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.35473.
    1. Katrak P, Bowring G, Conroy P, Chilvers M, Poulos R, McNeil D. Predicting upper limb recovery after stroke: the place of early shoulder and hand movement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(7):758–761. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90352-5.
    1. Verheyden G, Nieuwboer A, De Wit L, Thijs V, Dobbelaere J, Devos H, Severijns D, Vanbeveren S, De Weerdt W. Time course of trunk, arm, leg, and functional recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):173–179.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.02.017.
    1. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, Divine GW, Feussner J. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23(8):1084–1089.
    1. Welmer AK, Holmqvist LW, Sommerfeld DK. Limited fine hand use after stroke and its association with other disabilities. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(8):603–608. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0218.
    1. Lawrence ES, Coshall C, Dundas R, Stewart J, Rudd AG, Howard R, Wolfe CD. Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1279–1284.
    1. Mirbagheri MM, Tsao CC, Rymer WZ. Changes of elbow kinematics and kinetics during 1 year after stroke. Muscle Nerve. 2008;37(3):387–395. doi: 10.1002/mus.20965.
    1. Wagner JM, Lang CE, Sahrmann SA, Edwards DF, Dromerick AW. Sensorimotor impairments and reaching performance in subjects with poststroke hemiparesis during the first few months of recovery. Phys Ther. 2007;87(6):751–765. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060135.
    1. Trombly CA, Wu CY. Effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement after stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 1999;53(4):333–344.
    1. Murphy MA, Sunnerhagen KS, Johnels B, Willen C. Three-dimensional kinematic motion analysis of a daily activity drinking from a glass: a pilot study. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2006;3:18. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-3-18.
    1. Murphy MA, Willén Carin, Sunnerhagen Katharina S. Kinematic Variables Quantifying Upper-Extremity Performance After Stroke During Reaching and Drinking From a Glass. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2010. in press 1-11.
    1. Crosbie JH, Lennon S, McNeill MD, McDonough SM. Virtual reality in the rehabilitation of the upper limb after stroke: the user's perspective. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2006;9(2):137–141. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.137.
    1. Swapp D, Pawar V, Loscos C. Interaction with co-located haptic feedback in virtual reality. Virtual Reality. 2006;10(1):24–30. doi: 10.1007/s10055-006-0027-5.
    1. Henderson A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levin M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14(2):52–61. doi: 10.1310/tsr1402-52.
    1. Boian R, Sharma A, Han C, Merians A, Burdea G, Adamovich S, Recce M, Tremaine M, Poizner H. Virtual reality-based post-stroke hand rehabilitation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;85:64–70.
    1. Viau A, Feldman AG, McFadyen BJ, Levin MF. Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1(1):11. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-1-11.
    1. Broeren J, Claesson L, Goude D, Rydmark M, Sunnerhagen KS. Virtual rehabilitation in an activity centre for community-dwelling persons with stroke. The possibilities of 3-dimensional computer games. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26(3):289–296. doi: 10.1159/000149576.
    1. Broeren J, Rydmark M, Bjorkdahl A, Sunnerhagen KS. Assessment and training in a 3-dimensional virtual environment with haptics: a report on 5 cases of motor rehabilitation in the chronic stage after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(2):180–189. doi: 10.1177/1545968306290774.
    1. Broeren J, Sunnerhagen KS, Rydmark M. A kinematic analysis of a haptic handheld stylus in a virtual environment: a study in healthy subjects. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2007;4:13. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-4-13.
    1. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2001.
    1. Barkelius K, Johansson A, Korm K, Lindmark B. Reliabilitets- och validitetsprövning av Modifierad Motor Assessment Scale enligt Uppsala Akademiska Sjukhus -95. Nordisk Fysioterapi. 1997;29:161–165.
    1. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4(4):483–492. doi: 10.1097/00004356-198112000-00001.
    1. Adams HP Jr, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ, Biller J, Love BB, Gordon DL, Marsh EE. Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke. Definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke. 1993;24(1):35–41.
    1. Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C. Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet. 1991;337(8756):1521–1526. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)93206-O.
    1. Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(2):156–163. doi: 10.1002/art.10993.
    1. Denvall V, Elmstahl S, Prigatano GP. Replication and construct validation of the Barrow Neurological Institute Screen for Higher Cerebral Function with a Swedish population. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34(4):153–157. doi: 10.1080/16501970213231.
    1. Grimby G. Physical activity and muscle training in the elderly. Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1986;711:233–237.
    1. Mattiasson-Nilo I, Sonn U, Johannesson K, Gosman-Hedstrom G, Persson GB, Grimby G. Domestic activities and walking in the elderly: evaluation from a 30-hour heart rate recording. Aging (Milano) 1990;2(2):191–198.
    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. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63(10):1606–1610.
    1. van Wijck FM, Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Barnes MP. Assessing motor deficits in neurological rehabilitation: patterns of instrument usage. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15(1):23–30. doi: 10.1177/154596830101500104.
    1. Lyle R. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4(4):483–492. doi: 10.1097/00004356-198112000-00001.
    1. Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L, Cramer SC. A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(1):78–90.
    1. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Chiang FM, Lin PH. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the action research arm test in stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1998;27(2):107–113. doi: 10.1093/ageing/27.2.107.
    1. van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(3):110–113. doi: 10.1080/165019701750165916.
    1. Van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The intra- and interrater reliability of the action research arm test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(1):14–19. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.18668.
    1. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206–207.
    1. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL. Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age Ageing. 2000;29(3):223–228. doi: 10.1093/ageing/29.3.223.
    1. Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66(2):69–74.
    1. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, Kashman N. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg Am. 1984;9(2):222–226.
    1. Murphy MA, 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. doi: 10.1177/1545968310370748.
    1. Murphy MA, 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. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-3-18.
    1. Broeren J, Rydmark M, Sunnerhagen KS. Virtual reality and haptics as a training device for movement rehabilitation after stroke: a single-case study. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2004;85(8):1247–1250. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.09.020.
    1. Broeren J, Bjorkdahl A, Pascher R, Rydmark M. Virtual reality and haptics as an assessment device in the postacute phase after stroke. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2002;5(3):207–211. doi: 10.1089/109493102760147196.
    1. Broeren J, Sunnerhagen KS, Rydmark M. A kinematic analysis of a haptic handheld stylus in a virtual environment: a study in healthy subjects. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2007;4:13. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-4-13.
    1. Penta M, Tesio L, Arnould C, Zancan A, Thonnard JL. The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients: Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke. 2001;32(7):1627–1634.
    1. Penta M, Thonnard JL, Tesio L. ABILHAND: a Rasch-built measure of manual ability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(9):1038–1042. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90167-8.
    1. Gustafsson S, Sunnerhagen K, Dahlin-Ivanoff S. Occupational therapist's and patients's perception of ABILHAND, a new assessment tool for measuring manual ability. Scand J Occup Ther. 2004;11:107–117. doi: 10.1080/11038120410020692.
    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(10):2131–2140.
    1. Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(7):950–963. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2.
    1. Cardol M, de Haan RJ, de Jong BA, van den Bos GA, de Groot IJ. Psychometric properties of the Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(2):210–216. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.18218.
    1. Cardol M, de Haan RJ, van den Bos GA, de Jong BA, de Groot IJ. The development of a handicap assessment questionnaire: the Impact on Participation and Autonomy (IPA) Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(5):411–419. doi: 10.1191/026921599668601325.
    1. Kersten P, Cardol M, George S, Ward C, Sibley A, White B. Validity of the impact on participation and autonomy questionnaire: a comparison between two countries. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(19):1502–1509. doi: 10.1080/09638280601030066.
    1. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–343. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.
    1. Euroqol. Euro-Qol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intellegence and attainment tests. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1980.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever