Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Saba Anwer
 + 6541 word(s) 6541 2022-01-24 09:25:05 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 12 word(s) 6553 2022-02-11 08:59:23 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Anwer, S. Rehabilitation of Motor Impairment in Stroke. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19357 (accessed on 06 July 2024).
Anwer S. Rehabilitation of Motor Impairment in Stroke. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19357. Accessed July 06, 2024.
Anwer, Saba. "Rehabilitation of Motor Impairment in Stroke" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19357 (accessed July 06, 2024).
Anwer, S. (2022, February 11). Rehabilitation of Motor Impairment in Stroke. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/19357
Anwer, Saba. "Rehabilitation of Motor Impairment in Stroke." Encyclopedia. Web. 11 February, 2022.
Rehabilitation of Motor Impairment in Stroke
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/healthcare10020190

Stroke is categorized as one of the most concerning global health issues as it is a serious and common disabling factor worldwide. Ageing and urbanization are two powerful drivers of stroke. The elderly population is at higher risk of experiencing a stroke, but stroke can be prevented to some extent by dealing with the modifiable menace factors such as physical inactivity, drugs, unhealthy diet, and tobacco so that problems such as hypertension, high blood pressure, and diabetes, which are the root causes of the epidemic, may be managed. Different therapies are described, such as functional electric stimulation (FES), noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) including transcranial direct current stimulation (t-DCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (t-MS), invasive epidural cortical stimulation, virtual reality (VR) rehabilitation, task-oriented therapy, robot-assisted training, tele rehabilitation, and cerebral plasticity for the rehabilitation of upper extremity motor impairment. New therapeutic rehabilitation techniques are also being investigated, such as VR. 

stroke rehabilitation tele rehabilitation electric stimulation virtual reality (VR) epidural NIBS risk factors modifiable non-modifiable

1. Introduction

Stroke is categorized as one of the most concerning global health issues as it is a serious and common disabling factor worldwide. Recent figures suggest that around 650 million people are of 60 years or above age globally, and this number is expected to increase up to 2 billion by 2050 [1]. Ageing and urbanization are two powerful drivers of stroke. The elderly population is at higher risk of experiencing a stroke, but stroke can be prevented to some extent by dealing with the modifiable menace factors such as physical inactivity, drugs, unhealthy diet, and tobacco so that problems such as hypertension, high blood pressure, and diabetes, which are the root causes of the epidemic, may be managed [2]. A recent report by the World Health Organization (WHO) [3] states that stroke is the primary cause of disability and deaths among the senior population after heart disease. In 2012, almost 7 million (11.1%) people worldwide died due to stroke. Through stroke prevalence and incidence data [4] collected from fourteen EU and six EFTA countries, based on observing the lifestyle of the urban population, a remarkable increase in stroke numbers by 2025 is predicted. Post-stroke care programs impose a substantial economic burden on society. Hence, it is crucial to understand the significant cost drives (incurred in stroke rehab) and fill the information aperture to help compose effective public health care and rehabilitation policy. There is a considerable survival rate of stroke patients causing long term health consequences for the patients and their families [4]. It is expected that the prevalence of stroke burden will increase in the next 2–3 decades. Recent years have seen noticeable improvements in the management of stroke rehabilitation [5]. However, significant and consistent improvements are still needed to meet the predicted rise in the number of stroke survivors and improve care quality. Modern developments in the medical world are playing a pivotal role in rehabilitating and managing the stroke population and related economic burden [5]. Further, the promise of technological developments has renewed the interest of researchers and clinical experts in rehabilitation interventions for post-stroke treatments.

2. Stroke Statistics

Considering the prevalence statistics of stroke and its disastrous impact on the economy associated with the treatment, medication, and post-stroke care, it is crucial to take some cost-effective and rehabilitative measures and fill the information gap. In a statistical review [5] that included 42 studies about economic aspects of post-stroke care (PSC) and treatment, it was concluded that PSC cost was higher in America (4850 USD/month) and minimum in Australia (752 USD/month) (see Table 1). In this study, data were collected from MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane results from 2000–2016 and results were extracted systematically for post-stroke care (PSC) services. Finally, the economic figures were converted to the 2015 USD, then the total PSC cost per month for a patient was calculated. This nursing care and rehabilitative therapies were the primary cost contributors [5]. In Europe, almost 1 million stroke cases are reported each year, and the number of registered stroke survivors is 6 million. This population requires an efficient health care system and a significant economic investment privately and publicly by the government [6]. Briefly, in 27 EU countries, the annual estimated cost for PSC and treatment is 27 billion euros (8.5 billion indirect and 18.5 billion direct medical expense) [7]. In 2008, the total stroke treatment cost in the USA was 65.5 billion USD (indirect cost 33% and direct cost 67%). The American Heart and Stroke Association has estimated the total stroke care cost to be 184.1 billion USD by 2030 [8]. Depending upon the severity and consequences of stroke, a patient may require lifetime care. Considering this, the financial and clinical cost of the epidemic is of direct relevance to the public healthcare system. The average cost for stroke rehabilitation and medication services in the United States in the years 2001–2005 was USD 11,145 per patient after being discharged, in which USD 7318 were spent on rehabilitation and USD 3376 on medication [8][9][10]. These numeric figures indicate the significance of acquiring advanced, cost-effective, and user-friendly rehabilitation technologies to meet the demand of the expected stroke population for at least the next 2–3 decades.
Table 1. Stroke services monthly cost/patient for the year 2015 [5].
Country Per Patient Cost/Month in USD Cost/Month in USD per Outpatient Only
Australia 752 Not available
Canada 1444 Not available
Cuba Not available 616
Denmark 3022 Not available
France 1125 Not available
Germany 996 559
Italy 833 Not available
Malaysia Not available 192
Netherland 2016 Not available
Norway 2147 Not available
Sweden 768 389
Switzerland 1505 Not available
UK 868 883
USA 4850 773
Multicentric 2385 Not available
Another study analysed data from numerous registries and research databases; specifically, the expenses for acute and post-acute stroke management were calculated, including the direct health care and municipal services and indirect productivity losses using Modified Rankin Scale (mRs) per stroke category and functional disability [11]. Based on the stroke statistics and relevant facts presented in Table 2 and Table 3. it can be concluded that working on the rehabilitation of stroke patients and improving their functional ability is necessary for themselves and their families, as well as to lessen the economic burden on the society (see Table 4).
Table 2. Risk factors for stroke (modifiable and non-modifiable according to the different research studies in Pakistan, Brazil, India, and South East Asia) [11][12][13][14][15].
Modifiable Risk Factors Non-Modifiable Risk Factors
Hypertension (65.8%) Older age > 65 years
Transient ischemic attack (TIA) (24.9%) Family stroke history
Cardiac Diseases (29.1%) Higher in males
Carotid artery stenosis Ethnic factor
Atrial fibrillation ---
Hyperlipidemia (25.5%) ---
Physical inactivity ---
Smoking (43.0%) ---
Diabetes (41.3%) ---
Excess alcohol intake ---
Table 3. Data were taken from different studies conducted in different countries to assess the prevalence of the risk factors of stroke [12][13][14][16][17][18][19].
(a) Prevalence Frequency of Different Risk Factors for Ischemic Stroke in a Study Population in Pakistan (Study included 55 subjects to analyze the prevalence of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors
Risk Factor Male (n = 43) Female (n = 12) Total (n = 55)
Smoking 32 (74.3%) 0 32 (58.1%)
Familystroke history 22 (51%) 6 (50%) 28 (50.8%)
Dyslipidemia 15 (34.5%) 3 (25.1%) 18 (32.5%)
Obesity 9 (20.8%) 11(91.2%) 20 (17.9%)
Cardiac disease 4 (9.3%) 1 (8.3%) 5 (9.2%)
Diabetes mellitus 17 (38.8%) 3 (24.9%) 20 (35%)
Epilepsy 7 (15.9%) 2 (16.5%) 9 (15.9%)
(b) Yearly Awareness, Control, and Treatment Ratio for Stroke Risk Factors in China, Japan, and Taiwan
Risk Factor Category China Japan Taiwan
Hypertension Awareness 44.7 in 2000–2001,
24 in 2002, and
45 in 2007–2008		 54 in 2000 and
66 in males and 73 in females
in 2000–2001		 22.5 in males and 39.3 in females in 1993–1996
Treatment 28 in 2000–2001,
20 in 2002, and
36.2 in 2007–2008		 46.1 in 2000,
16.4 in males and 33–57 in females in 2000–2001, and
54.4 in 2008		 13.4 in males and 28 in females in 1993–1996,
44 in males and 59 in females in 2002
Control 8.1 in 2000–2001,
5 in 2002, and
11 in 2007–2008		 23.4 in males and 28 in females in 2000,
27 in 2008, and
25 in 2009,		 2–2.3 in males and 5.1 in females in 1993–1996,
21 in males and 28 in females in 2002
High cholesterol Awareness 24.4 in 2003–2013 56 in males and 59 in females in 2000–2001 ---
Treatment 9 in 2003–2013 52 in males and 53 in females in 2000–2001 ---
Control 4.2 in 2003–2013 72 in 2009 65 in 2002–2003 in 2006–2007
Diabetes Awareness 24 in 2000–2001 and
30 in 2010		 --- 70 in males and 63 in females in 1993–1996
Treatment 20 in 2000–2001 and
26 in 2010		 --- ---
Control 8.4 in 2000–2001 and
39.7 treated patients in 2010		 34 from 2000–2002 and 36 from 2006–2008 27.00 in 1998 and 11.2 in 2006 (among patients having insulin therapy)
(c) Prevalence assessment of stroke risk factors in a study with 688 patients in Brazil
Patients
n = 688		 Microangiopathy Macroangiopathy
n = 127 (18.5%)		 Cardio Embolism
n = 195 (28.3%)
Women n = 360 (52.3%) 49.6% 52.3% 53.3%
Men n = 328 (47.7%) 50.4% 47.5% 46.7%
Age above 65 72.4% 63.2% 56.8%
Smoking n = 164 29.1% 30% 16.9%
Hypertension n = 517 (almost in all groups) 92.1% 80.7% 69.7%
Dyslipidemia n = 324 50.4% 57.8% 40%
Diabetes n = 146 27.6% 26.9% 18.5
Table 4. First and second year cost analysis per patient according to modified Rankin scale score for (a) Hemorrhagic stroke (b) Ischemic stroke [11].
(a) Inpatient Stay Care Outpatient
Specialty Care		 Outpatient
Primary Care		 Home Care Services Particular
Housing Days
First year Month
1–3		 No. of Days Amout in Euros No. of Visits Amout in Euros No. of Visits Amout in Euros No. of Hours Amout in Euros No. of Days Amout in Euros
2 23 20,015 11 3123 13 1525 19 876 2 330
3 37 31,668 10 2812 11 1310 235 10,904 34 6290
4 49 42,295 12 3358 12 1374 510 23,684 82 15,071
5 64 55,370 6 1605 9 1069 501 23,264 170 31,476
Deaths 14 12,397 1 327 1 127 47 2177 26 4780
Survivals 39 33,521 10 2898 12 1369 213 9873 51 9494
Patients 29 25,306 7 1898 7 886 146 6769 41 7661
Second year Month 12                    
2 2 9784 4 1033 5 626 25 1155 1 230
3 6 9770 4 1032 6 667 698 32,420 39 7115
4 7 9032 3 954 6 674 1419 65,931 67 12,448
5 3 6217 2 656 5 550 689 31,999 250 46,221
Deaths 12 7431 3 785 4 527 453 21,056 128 23,570
Survivals 5 8159 3 862 5 588 429 19,931 52 9581
Patients 5 8095 3 855 5 582 431 20,021 59 10,811
(b) mRs Scale Value Inpatient Stay Care Outpatient
Specialty Care		 Outpatient
Primary Care		 Home Care Services Particular
Housing
First year Month
1–3		 No. of Days Amout in Euros No. of Visits Amout in Euros No. of Visits Amout in Euros No. of Hours Amout in Euros No. of Days Amout in Euros
2 12 20,015 9 3123 13 1525 13 876 1 330
3 25 31,668 8 2812 12 1310 243 10,904 34 6290
4 35 42,295 9 3358 13 1374 547 23,684 75 15,071
5 41 55,370 5 1605 8 1069 392 23,264 213 31,476
Deaths 23 12,397 2 327 3 127 100 2177 48 4780
Survivals 22 33,521 8 2898 12 1369 171 9873 40 9494
Patients 22 25,306 7 1898 10 886 154 6769 42 7661
Second year Month 12                    
2 3 1704 3 1033 5 626 26 1155 1 230
3 6 4263 3 1032 5 667 571 32,420 40 7115
4 8 4899 3 954 5 674 1325 65,931 78 12,448
5 4 2465 3 656 5 550 741 31,999 265 46,221
Deaths 14 8736 3 785 5 527 505 21,056 105 23,570
Survivals 5 3262 3 862 5 588 373 19,931 44 9581
Patients 6 3744 3 855 5 582 384 20,021 50 10,811

2.1. Stroke Risk Factor

Being a heterogeneous disease, stroke has contrasting consequences on human physiology, depending on whether the stroke is subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), ischemic stroke. or intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH), each varying in pathophysiology [11]. Epidemiologic studies can help identify the risk factors that lead to stroke. Marking the risk factors for certain precarious diseases help deal with the morbidity (see Table 2).

2.1.1. Non-Modifiable Risk Factors

  • Age
Stroke incidences increase with age between 45–85 years and almost double with each passing decade. The risk of having a stroke is highest among 55–65 years. In a study of stroke prevalence in the UK, it has been revealed that at the age of 40 there are 10 deaths/100,000 population, whereas there are 100 deaths/100,000 population at the age of 75. The stroke rate is doubled in both genders after 55 for each passing decade. Age is declared as an independent unmodifiable risk factor for experiencing intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAD), and its prevalence increases with each passing decade (23% for age group 50–60 years, 43% for 60–70 years, 65% for 70–80 years, and 80% for the population >80 years) [12].
  • Heredity/Family stroke history
Heredity is one of the well-studied risk factors. Previous studies have divulged that genetic factors play an endeavouring role in developing premature ICAD-atherosclerosis in the body’s vascular system via proliferation of smooth muscle, angiogenesis impairment, and endothelial injury [13][14].
  • Ethnicity
Results of a stroke study to determine the ethnicity as a risk factor showed that black people are at 2.1 times greater risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage and 1.4 times greater risk of intracerebral haemorrhage than white people [15]. The ratio of affected population with intracranial stenosis is higher in Hispanic and African Americans than white Americans. A comparative autopsy supports this data study (aorta and coronary arteries) for ICAD between African and white Americans [16]. Similarly, stroke incidence among Asian populations is much higher than in those of North European descent. Several studies investigating gender as a risk factor have found that there is no substantial difference between the affected male and female population [16]. However, the stroke occurrence rate is 1.25 times more in the male population. In a study the male population was found to be predominant over the female population for the age group ranging from 21–78 years (51% and 49%, respectively) [20].

2.1.2. Modifiable Risk Factors

  • High BP
High BP is found to be a powerful precursor for ischemic and ICH (intracranial haemorrhage). BP > 140/90 mmHg has been reported in 77% population during their first stroke attack. Diabetic stroke patients with BP < 120/85 have 50% less lifetime risk than the stroke patients with hypertension (high BP) [21]. More than 50% of the lacunar stroke patients have been found to suffer from hypertension (Baseline data by SPS3) [22].
  • Cardiac diseases
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is generally undetectable but clinically treatable. By using outpatient telemetry in cryptogenic stroke/TIA patients for 21–30 days, the atrial fibrillation rate of 12–23% has been detected. With each passing decade, the AF incidence almost doubles above 55 years of age [23]. Almost 50% of cardioembolic strokes are due to AF. The risk of stroke due to AF increased from 1.5% for the age group 50–59 years to 23.5% for 80–89 years [24]. Above the age of 80 years, it has been seen that one out of four stroke cases were due to AF [25][26].
  • Smoking
Smoking doubles the risk of stroke. In the Nurses’ Health study and Framingham study, it was revealed that smoking reduces the stroke significant risk within 2–4 years. This positive stroke reduction trend was observed among moderate and heavy smokers of all age groups [23].
  • Diabetes Mellitus (DM)
Diabetic patients are more likely to have atherogenic (hypertension, irregular blood lipids, and obesity) risk factors, and such patients have more susceptibility towards atherosclerosis (blocked arteries) [26]. DM has been confirmed as an independent risk factor for causing ischemic stroke through various control and epidemiological studies [27]. In a study by Honolulu Heart Program, it has been revealed that the population suffering from DM has twice the risk of experiencing a thromboembolic stroke, and glucose-intolerant people have double the risk of brain infarction than non-diabetic people (by Framingham) [28]. Besides DM, Hyperinsulinemia is also considered the risk factor for ischemic stroke. In a study by Smith, Ebrahim in 2005, DM was found as the risk factor for intracranial stenosis, which triggers the formation of atherosclerosis. Moreover, in an autopsy study by Hon Kong, the impact of diabetes over stroke was analyzed, leading to the conclusion that DM was a toughened risk factor for having intracranial stenosis [28][29].
  • Alcohol consumption
Stroke studies have shown an ischemic stroke in curvilinear relation with low alcohol consumption having a protective effect and boosted risk with excess consumption [23]. Women were at higher risk than men with 3 drinks/day [22]. Heavy alcohol consumption may be the risk of any of the reported stroke types. The risk of small artery occlusion is associated with high alcohol intake in ischemic stroke.
  • Obesity
Abdominal obesity is an independent risk factor of stroke in all ethnic groups. This is because obesity is a crucial contributor to increased hypertension and coronary heart diseases. Thus, there should be an emphasis on weight reduction and obesity prevention in every stroke prevention and rehabilitation program [30][31].
  • Hyperlipidemia
Hyperlipidemia is directly associated with coronary heart disease, but uncertainty exists in describing its relationship with stroke [32]. The protective influence of high-density lipoproteins (HDL-cholesterol) over atherosclerosis has been reported in various studies. Intracranial stenosis is directly linked with dyslipidemia, especially with high cholesterol [33]. Synergic effect exists between lipoproteins, DM, and intracranial occlusive disorder. Increased levels of LDL (low density lipoproteins) has also been found a risk factor for causing intracranial stenosis [34]. However, an impenetrable correspondence between plasma lipo-concentration and stroke risk has not been established [35]. Low HDL concentration <0.90 mmol/L, high triglyceride level > 2.30 mmol/L, and hypertension have been associated twofold and thus impact the risk of stroke morbidity. Lipids play a prevalent role in stroke risk [36].

3. Restoration of UL Mobility

Recovery of patients is a priority as it enables these patients to perform activities of daily living independently, reducing the demand of caretakers and healthcare personnel and providing an opportunity for these patients to resume social participation, thus increasing their quality-of-life [37]. Although restoring UL function in post-stroke patients is essential, regaining the full motor function may not always be achievable, depending on the extent of disability [38]. In a stroke population with some residual muscle activity, exercise or physical therapy dependent brain plasticity has been found to restore the sensory-motor function [39]. Several pilot studies have shown promisingly positive results of robot-assisted rehabilitation for recovery and plasticity following a stroke [40]. Assistive technologies (prosthetic limbs and devices) are a viable option to replace the human body’s lost function [41]). These technologies can move the disabled hand or electrically stimulate the muscle to create muscle contractions in limbs. Paralyzed or atrophied muscles can be restored with neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) using long term implanted system or surface electrodes [42]. Patients suffering from stroke or lower SCI or C1–C4 injury sometimes completely lose the muscle motor action due to motor neuron damage making the restricted use of NMES [43]. Multidisciplinary and supportive services are required to rehabilitate hemiplegic patients in stable condition beginning 48 h after the disease onset [44]. Generally, inpatient and outpatient services are beneficial for both patients and their families, but in a larger perspective, these services have their practice standards regarding diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, which can vary [44]. Speech, occupational, and physical therapies play an important role in improving the patients’ skills (motor, verbal, etc.), helping create such an environment where the patients with minimum interference of attendants can function. Further, the well-structured and autonomous physical rehabilitation systems help minimise all the infrastructural, mobility and accessibility barriers with orthotics, prosthetics, and electrics devices such as wheelchairs and walkers [45]. Adaptive plasticity has been shown to play a crucial role in motor recovery after stroke for a long time. However, there has always been difficulty identifying the precise mechanisms and neural structures. For the last 15 years’ researchers have conducted numerous studies and controlled trials in animal models and actual stroke patients, concluding that there is a space for adaptive plasticity in the brain after injury or stroke [46]. After the injury, there are various functional variations in the cerebral cortex and it undergoes significant structural changes for several weeks or months after injury/stroke onset [46]. Results of the cortical reorganization indicate marked functional variations after stroke in primate models [47]. Moreover, impaired limb repetitive task practices cause a modulatory impact on cortical plasticity. Training therapies can likely influence the reorganizational mechanisms in the cerebral cortex, thus promoting functional recovery [47]. Immediate, multisensory, and intensive rehabilitative interventions in stroke patients effectively regain functional activities on impaired limbs. However, the mechanisms of neurological recovery after stroke are still not well understood [48]. However, there is experimental evidence that intervention of more than one therapeutic technique is helpful for fast motor recovery, and cerebral plasticity undoubtedly plays a central role in rehabilitation of neural pathways. Various specific therapeutic UL exercises influence cerebral plasticity in stroke patients. In a well-designed rehabilitative system, there should be a feedback system, as it helps in achieving faster and better functional outcomes [49].

Rehabilitation Therapies

The purpose of this entry is to provide a detailed overview of the stroke’s morbidity, prevalence, risk factors, social burden, and relevant economic aspects in terms of treatment and care services. This section of the entry has discussed various technology-enabled techniques Table 5 to rehabilitate the UL and restore its motor activity after stroke or injury.
Table 5. Included Stroke Rehabilitation Techniques.
Technique Focus Strategy Comparison with Conventional Therapy Disability
FES (functional electric stimulation) [50] To study the effect of FES on UL rehabilitation Open-label block inpatient randomized control study Fast recovery than task traditional task-oriented physiotherapy Acute phase of stroke
FES [51] Application of FES with bilateral training on UL Randomized double-blinded controlled study Test scores for FES intervention showed better improvement 6 months after stroke onset
FES therapy [52] FES therapy on triceps and anterior deltoid 18 sessions of 60 min. therapy with diff. functional tasks FES therapeutic intervention improved functionality tests score by 4.5 points Hemorrhagic stroke
NMES-neuromuscular electric stimulation [53][54][55][56][57] To study the effect of NMES application on hemiplegic patients Cyclic stimulation in randomized control studies Satisfactory results have been observed Acute/subacute phase of stroke but applicable in chronic phase as well
FES [58] For analysing the effect of FES in patients with hemiplegia Randomly controlled FES session of 6 weeks for 6 h everyday UL motor functions were significantly improved Hemiplegia with subluxation
FES-ET [59] Potency check of FES therapy Comparative controlled strategy Obtained satisfactory results Stroke subacute phase (UL hemiplegia)
NIBS [60][61][62][63] To test the results of tDCS and tMS Modulation of cortical excitability Effective and feasible Motor disability due to Stroke
NIBS [64] Application of tDCS for UL rehabilitation Placebo controlled mechanism Encouraging outcomes in terms of recovery duration Post ischemic stroke disability
NIBS [65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Neuromodulation using NIBS Regulation of cortical excitability with r-tMS safe and effective UL disability after stroke
NIBS [72][73][74] Application of anodal non-invasive t-DCS as motor therapy Meta analysis of 23 studies with >500 patients in total Positive but not-sufficient outcomes to reach any conclusion. UL disability due to chronic stroke
Epidural stimulation invasive [75][76] To check the efficacy and feasibility of EECS Single blinded and multicenter study Better recovery rate was recorded as compared to the control group Moderate to severe ischemic stroke patients with UL disability
Cortical electric stimulation [77][78] Rehabilitation of motor activity of UL Stimulation of motor cortex of animal models Satisfactory results were observed Disability of UL
Stimulation of motor cortex [79][80][81][82] To understand the neurological characteristics through motor cortex & deep brain stimulation stroke subjects were included in the studies 48–50% patients showed positive results Post stroke pain
VR rehabilitation [83][84][85] To understand the effect of VR for stroke rehabilitation Stroke patients were included in the study General experience indicated positive results Post stroke disability
VR [86][87][88] To analyse the efficacy of virtual rehabilitation Different databases were examined in a review Sufficient satisfactory results were observed Functional disability
VR [89][90][91][92][93] Rehabilitation of motor activity PC-based VR systems were designed and pilot trials were performed Satisfactory improvements were observed in hand parameters Chronic stroke patients
Task-oriented therapy [94] To test the functional and impairment efficacies of task-oriented therapy 20 patients were included in a Single-blinded randomized study Group who received task-oriented exercises showed better recovery rate Post stroke UL disability
Task-oriented therapy [95][96][97][98][99][100][101] Optimization of locomotor relearning Aerobic complex task trainings Motor abilities of the patients improved after therapy session Chronic stroke patients
Robotic therapy [102] To design a robot based therapeutic system Robot based training Positive but not satisfactory Functional disability
Robot assisted therapy [103][104][105][106][107] To compare the results of EULT and robotic therapy based on MIT robotic gym Repetitive functional therapy Not significant improvement was observed in UL functionality UL disability
Tele rehabilitation [108][109] To check the feasibility of tele rehabilitation system Outpatient therapy As effective as clinical based therapies Motor disability
Tele rehabilitation
[110]		 To examine the efficacy of tele rehabilitation Different data bases from MADLINE, Cochrane, and Embase were collected and analyzed No adverse events were reported, considered to be an emerging field however more trials are needed Post stroke motor disability
Tele rehabilitation
[111][112][113]		 Use of tele rehabilitation for accommodating the stroke patients on large scale Activity based therapies Appears to be a holistic approach Patients of functional disability
  • Functional Electric Stimulation
In a pilot study [50], the role of Functional Electric Stimulation (FES) in the recovery of UL motor function was tested in the early stages of stroke. Randomized (Open-label block) trials were applied during inpatient treatment and continued at home. Seven patients received FES plus task-oriented therapy, and control group subjects (n = 8) received only task-oriented therapies. All the patients could move their arms freely after the therapy session for 12 weeks. To check the improvement in arms’ functionality, box and block (B&B), Modified Fugl-Meyer (mF-M), and Jebsen Taylor light object lift (J-T) tests were recorded, and the results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Improvement Analysis of UL [44].
Test Type Baseline Score 12th Week Score
1. B&B    
FES group 7.00 ± 0.00 48.00 ± 28.00
Control Group 4.00 ± 0.50 25.5 ± 15.0
2. mF-M    
FES group 23.0 ± 17 51.0 ± 44.0
Control Group 20.5 ± 15.5 39.0 ± 33.25
3. J-T    
FES group 60.0 ± 18.0 5.70 ± 4.20
Control Group 60.0 ± 39.75 10.0 ± 7.87
FES group showed a better recovery rate than the control group (task-oriented only).
In a randomized controlled (double-blinded) study [51], the effectiveness of FES-functional electric stimulation with bilateral training activities was observed for the UL rehabilitation sample of 20 subjects recruited six months after stroke onset. They completed 15 sessions of training. Self-triggered mechanisms synchronized with bilateral UL activities (stretching activities = 10 min, occupational therapy = 60 min, and FES with bilateral task = 20 min) were applied on the participants of the FES group, and their motion was detected via accelerometer. In contrast, the control group participants received occupational and stretching therapies with placebo stimulation for the same duration. Functional test for hemiplegic UE (FTHUE), grip, Modified Ashworth scale, Fugal-Meyer test, forward-reaching distance, and active range of motion test were applied with the following outcomes Table 7.
Table 7. Improvement analysis of UL [50].
Test Type FES Group Mean Score Control Group Mean Score
Pretraining Post-Training Pretraining Post-Training
Fugl-Meyer test 18.1 ± 7.8 25.8 ± 8.7 19.9 ± 10.00 22.0 ± 9.8
Forward reaching (cm) 12.6 ± 7.6 20.4 ± 9.7 7.7 ± 9.7 11.9 ± 12.4
Grip power (kg) 1.20 ± 1.9 2.20 ± 2.0 1.1 ± 1.59 2.00 ± 2.1
FTHUE 2.5 ± 0.8 3.7 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.6 3.1 ± 0.6
Functional independence 76.7 ± 12.0 80.2 ± 6.9 77.3 ± 12.0 77.6 ± 12.0
FES with bilateral UL therapy is better in improving the motor function.
In 18 sessions by [52], five hemiplegic stroke patients received FES therapy to their triceps, finger extensors, and anterior deltoid for one hour. Different functional tasks such as switching, pressing, and closing a drawer were performed with natural objects during each session. Saebo-MAS and Microsoft Kinect were used to collect the kinematic data. Action Research Arm Test and Fugl-Meyer tests were performed to check the pre and post arms’ functionality. Test score significantly improved for FES assisted therapy by 4.4 points. A feasibility study has shown that economical hardware amalgamated with modern FES controllers can substantially improve the UL motor function. Cyclic (1/2 channel stimulator) NMES-neuromuscular electric stimulation has been applied in numerous randomized controlled studies with encouraging results for acute/subacute patients suffering from hemiplegia [53][54][55]. Patients with some residual muscle activity at baseline have shown more satisfactory results with the application of cyclic NMES [56]. Hemiplegic patients with subluxation randomly assigned to experimental long and short duration subgroups for six weeks (6 h/day) received FES-functional electric stimulation therapy at posterior deltoid and supraspinatus muscles in a study by [57]. They reported that the Fugl-Meyer score significantly improved the arm’s motor function. The effectiveness of FES-ET (functional electric stimulation exercise therapy) during the subacute phase of stroke was tested [58] in a comparative controlled random low and high-intensity treatment study. Nineteen UL-Hemiplegic patients (men = 10 and women = 9) of the age 60.5 ± 5.8 years with average disease duration 48 ± 17 days received FES therapy with adequate encouraging outcomes. In the analysis of randomized controlled studies, FES is an effective treatment for patients > 18 years with a stroke duration time of 2 months. However, no significant improvement was observed in studies where FES treatment was initiated after one year of stroke onset [59].
  • Non-Invasive brain stimulation-IBS (t-MS and t-DCS)
According to [60], Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) satisfactorily affect the cortical excitability and motor function, thus increasing the clinical arena for the beneficial and customarily use of NIBS as the neurorehabilitation treatment for stroke patients. TMS can alter the cortical activity by creating a transient magnetic field and depolarizing the neurons depending upon the field strength, coil shape, frequency, and duration [61][62]. tDCS (transcranial direct current stimulation) (1–2 mA) using two-surface electrodes can depress or increase the regional excitability in the motor cortex through neuronal depolarization [63][64]. According to [65], NIBS (tMS and tDCS) can modulate the cortical excitability with satisfactory long-lasting effects. In placebo-controlled studies, almost 1000 stroke subjects have been included to achieve UL-motor recovery. High frequency > 3 Hz TMS and low frequency < 1 Hz r-TMS were applied to increase and decrease the excitability of the ischemic cortex, respectively; these non-stimuli have shown constructive effects on neurological scales, functional disability score, and treatment duration of the patients [66]. Disturbed neural pathways are remodelled, and networks between the two hemispheres are modulated by applying NIBS (TMS and tDCS) in post-stroke neuro-rehabilitation by [67]. Neurophysiological alterations have been reported in stroke patients by applying the NIBS-TMS technique [67][68]. NIBS can directly increase the excitability of the motor cortex (ipsilesional). Motor recovery and learning can be increased by applying NIBS directly/indirectly [69]. Pairing up the NIBS with motor training instead of alone results in prolonged functional neural plasticity and performance improvement in the ipsilesional motor cortex [70]. These noninvasive brain stimulation techniques have proven beneficial for modulating brain function and plasticity. tDCS and r-TMS are powerful means to regulate cortical excitability, bring alterations in the motor cortex and thus enhance the motor function of UL after stroke. Neuromodulation with NIBS is a safe, effective, and feasible method to assist recovery from motor impairment after stroke or injury, and no side effects (seizures) have been reported so far [71][72][73][74]. A total of 523 stroke patients were included in a review of 23 studies, including variables such as post-stroke duration, the number of tDCS sessions used, methodology, and type of motor therapy performed. Positive results have been recorded in patients with chronic stroke with the application of anodal tDCS for the motor recovery of UL. No data has been found for subacute stroke. The effect of anodal tDCS is still unclear for the recovery of hand function in the subacute phase of stroke by [74].
  • Epidural cortical stimulation (Invasive)
In a single-blinded, prospective, and multicentre study, the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of Epidural Electrical Motor Cortex stimulation (EECS) were assessed for improving the motor function of UL in the ischemic stroke patients suffering from moderate to severe hemiparesis. A total of 104 patients in the experimental group and 60 patients in the control group were included within four months of stroke onset. Epidural six-contact lead was implanted for EECS in the patients of the experimental group perpendicular to the primary motor cortex and pulse generator. Both the groups received rehabilitation therapy for six weeks. Arm motor activity was tested using the arm motor ability test (AMAT), Fugl-Meyer scale, and follow-up assessments. Post hoc comparison tests were performed to determine the treatment effect difference between the control and experimental groups. Test results showed a better recovery rate among the patients of the experimental group who received the EECS therapy compared to the control group [75][76]. For the rehabilitation of UL-upper limb’s motor activity, electric stimulation of the cortex is emerging as a reliable approach. It has been observed from different animal models that cortical stimulation and motor learning facilitate cortical remodelling and long-term potentiation by altering the intracortical inhibitory circuits [76]. Neurological characteristics of the patients suffering from poststroke pain were identified, indicating the satisfactory response to MC-motor cortex stimulation [77]. In this study, 31 patients were treated through the stimulation of the motor cortex; 15 (48%) patients showed an excellent response (>60% reduction in pain). In 13 patients, satisfactory/good pain control was achieved after stroke onset. There was no significant relationship observed between the sensory symptoms such as hypesthesia, dysesthesia, allodynia, hyperpathia, and pain control. However, it has been concluded that the pre-operative evaluation of the motor weakness in painful areas is beneficial for predicting the favourable response towards motor cortex stimulation in controlling the post-stroke pain [77]. Intractable pains have been treated using DBS-deep brain stimulation for more than 50 years. A meta-analysis has been performed to understand better the role of deep brain stimulation in relieving post-stroke pain. Inclusion criteria were based on the clarity of protocol and patient characteristics. The stimulation trial was successful in 50% of patients suffering from post-stroke pain and 58% of patients with permanently implanted treatment for ongoing pain relief [78]. DBS-deep brain stimulation is an effective and remarkably safe treatment for movement disorders. It is being applied to various psychiatric and neurologic disorders, including refractory epilepsy. A review examined the use of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy using the known targets and mechanisms of seizure control and neuro modulation [79]. Although deep neuromodulation for the treatment of epilepsy has a very long experimental history, precise stereotactic techniques and epileptogenic networks are now better understood. Robust trial designs are combined to improve the quality of evidence and make the DBS a feasible, trustworthy, and viable treatment option. However, the underlying mechanisms, stimulation parameters, and anatomical targets are still the areas of active investigation [80][81][82].
  • Post-Stroke VR rehabilitation
Interactive video games and virtual reality have emerged as viable treatment approaches for stroke rehabilitation. Commercial gaming is rapidly being adopted in clinical settings for cognitive, speech and physical rehabilitation [83]. In a case study the efficacy and reliability of virtual reality for UL activity and function were observed [83].Twenty-nine stroke patients (women = 17, men = 12) aged 43–85 years were included in three different studies to investigate the effect of VR technology for the rehabilitation of stroke. All the included stroke subjects responded positively towards VR activity station. A considerable change in attitude was observed when stroke subjects were exposed to VR computer games [84].
Besides functional activity, other factors such as balance, gait, cognitive function, global motor function, quality of life, and participation restriction were also examined. Results indicated that VR effectively improves UL function and daily life activities when used as a complement to usual care. Databases from different sources (Medline, AMED, Proquest, CINAHL, and Psych-Info) were collected [84] to assess the utility of VR for stroke rehabilitation. A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria (5 = UL rehabilitation, 3 = gait and balance, 2 = cognitive interventions, and 1 = both UL and lower limb rehabilitation). VR was observed to be a safe and potentially exciting tool for stroke rehabilitation, but the evidence base has been found too limited by power and design issues to permit the definite assessment of its value [85][86]. Although the findings of this entry are positive, the evidence level is still weak-moderate in terms of research quality.
Further controlled studies are warranted. Between 50 and 75% of stroke patients suffer from persistent motor impairment of affected UL. Hence, better training strategies for motor training functions need to be identified. Although virtual reality is emerging as a practical treatment approach, its effectiveness needs to be established appropriately. Immersive VR vs. no therapy in UL rehabilitation secured level-1b evidence, level-5 evidence for VR therapy vs. conventional therapy, level-4 evidence showed conflicting results for non-immersive VR vs. no therapy, and level-2b evidence for non-immersive VR therapy vs. conventional therapy [86]. Current evidence of using VR for UL rehabilitation is limited in effectiveness, but it is sufficiently encouraging for justifying additional trials in the stroke population. A PC-based virtual reality system was developed to rehabilitate hand motor activity in stroke patients.
For these two I/P devices, Rutgers Master-RMII and Cyber-Glove were used to allow the patient to interact with the virtual environment. Different target levels based on performance were designed for increasing the patient’s motivation and individualizing the exercise difficulty. Pilot trials in the clinical environment were performed. The working protocol was applied on chronic patients for two weeks regularly. Experimental outcomes indicated a satisfactory improvement in hand parameters. Subjective evaluation was positive, indicating VR as a practical approach for stroke rehabilitation [87][88]. Virtual reality is emerging as well accepted stroke rehabilitation therapy. A review assessed the safety, efficiency, and feasibility of VR therapy for the rehabilitation of UL motor activity. Thirty-seven randomized controlled studies with 1019 stroke subjects were included in this entry. VR was a more effective and satisfactory treatment than conventional therapy for improving the UL functional activity [89][90]. VR environment is now considered a promising therapeutic approach for ADL rehabilitation after stroke, especially in the subacute phase. VR tools will have the potential to be used in homes, providing additional therapeutic practice besides formal therapy sessions. VR will likely be an important contributing factor in rehabilitation services in the near future. VR urges therapists to engage with the gaming groups and engineering applications to explore the innovative approaches for delivering viable rehabilitation programs [91][92][93].
  • Task-oriented muscle therapy
Functional safety and impairment efficacies of a task-oriented approach have been evaluated for the patients suffering from post-stroke UL disability. Twenty subjects were recruited in a single-blinded randomized cross-over study. Subjects were randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 immediate) and (n = 10 delayed intervention). The first group received task-oriented therapy for six weeks (3 h/week) followed by no-intervention control for six more weeks. However, there was a reverse order followed for the second group. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) functional measures, MAL, and WMFT (Wolf motor function test) was used to measure the motor activity of UL. The score of functional change was higher for the task-oriented (TO) group. A TO approach appears to be a viable and effective post-stroke UL rehabilitation technique with considerable clinical functional improvement [94]. In a review, various databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL) were searched to identify the studies related to the TO approach for post-stroke rehabilitation. To ensure the quality, only randomized controlled trials were included. They concluded that TO training for stroke patients is a reliable and safe way to enhance the functional outcomes and overall quality of life [95][96]. Repetitive task training-RTT is an active practice approach to enhance motor activities in stroke patients. Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL randomized controlled group trials were assessed to determine repetitive task training-RTT effectiveness for UL. Low-quality evidence showed that repetitive task training enhances arm functionality (participants analysed = 749). Moderate quality evidence was recorded that RTT improves walking distance (Participants analysed = 610). Significant differences were found between the groups of upper and lower limb functionality. Intervention type, time, and dosage did not modify the effects. However, there was insufficient evidence to be sure about the adverse events [97][98]. For optimising locomotor relearning in stroke patients (chronic), a treadmill was used as a task-oriented-TO training/exercise paradigm. There were beneficial effects observed in the training session of 6 months. Cardiometabolic fitness, ADL task performance, leg strength, and energy cost for hemiparetic gait were significantly enhanced [99][100][101].
  • Robot-assisted therapy
Post-stroke rehabilitation is progressing towards deriving more integrated therapeutic muscle training approaches to avoid long-term muscle impairments. In this regard, robot-assisted stroke rehabilitation has shown some promising results. Functional activities of robot-assisted therapy have been extensively examined, giving positive but unsatisfactory results during clinical trials [102]. To address some of the limitations noted, state-of-the-art robot-assisted therapeutic systems have been proposed to rehabilitate the upper and lower limb after stroke [102]. Robot-assisted muscle training devices are being used for post-stroke rehabilitation and to help improve arm functionalit [103]. The effectiveness of robot-assisted and electromechanical arm training to improve daily living activities and muscle strength has been assessed.
Moreover, safety, feasibility, and acceptability factors have also been examined. Randomized controlled studies comparing the robot-assisted and electromechanical therapies were included along with placebo interventions/no-interventions after stroke. A total of 45 trials (participants = 1619) were included in the study. Participants who received both pieces of training after stroke onset improved their daily life activities, muscle strength and arm function. High-quality evidence was achieved due to the variations in duration, intensity, treatment and measurement used [104]. Loss of UL functionality is a common consequence of stroke. Robot-assisted therapy may improve the muscle activity of the arm. The effectiveness of EULT-enhanced UL therapy and robot-assisted therapy using MIT robotic gym has been compared based on usual care and repetitive functional practice. There was no significant improvement in UL motor activity observed in the patients with severe functional disability. The result of the study did not support robotic therapy in routine clinical practice [105][106][107].
  • Tele rehabilitation
The effectiveness of tele rehabilitation (TR) was assessed for outpatient therapy to improve poststroke residual activities such as motor function, disability, and speech. A comprehensive literature survey was conducted for three different databases. Complete studies addressing TR training sessions were reviewed. Thirty-four articles with 1025 stroke subjects were included in [108]. Different types of TR were reported to be used in related studies, including VR therapy, speech therapy, robot assisted therapy, different motor training sessions, and community-based therapeutic sessions, which revealed that TR is less expensive and equally effective than clinic-based therapy practices. However, TR can be integrated with other therapies such as speech practice, VR, or robotic to achieve more satisfactory results [109]. To examine whether telerehabilitation helps improve the functional ability of stroke patients to perform daily life activities compared to in-person (face to face therapy session) and usual care/no rehabilitation, a systematic review has been conducted (Cochrane group trials 2019, Cochrane library 2019, Cochrane controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight additional databases).
A total of 1937 stroke subjects were included in 22 different trials. Comparisons greatly varied throughout the studies. However, no adverse events were reported related to TR. This is still an emerging field, and more definitive results are required. Results of the studies in which mixed evaluation methods were used are valuable [109][110]. Although activity-based therapeutic sessions for the rehabilitation of stroke patients are very significant in improving functional capabilities and quality of life, some patients, due to various reasons (transportation difficulties, low compliance, and poor access, etc.), cannot receive these services. TR can play an essential role in resolving these issues by providing quality muscle training programs. The feasibility of TR has been assessed for an expanded telerehabilitation program. Thirteen stroke patients received home-based TR under the supervision of an expert physiotherapist. The resulting outcomes were evaluated using different tests (Modified Rankin score, Fugl-Meyer test). A home-based TR system provides a holistic approach for rehabilitation and stroke prevention. More work needs to be focused on extracting more reliable, credible, and satisfactory outcomes regarding TR [111][112][113].

References

  1. Mendis, S. Stroke disability and stroke rehabilitation: World Health Organization perspective. Int. J. Stroke 2013, 8, 3–4.
  2. World Health Organization. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Pocket Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Cardiovascular Risk: (WHO/ISH Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Charts for the African Region); World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  3. WHO. WHO Methods for Life Expectancy and Healthy Life Expectancy; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
  4. Truelsen, T.; Piechowski-Jóźwiak, B.; Bonita, R.; Mathers, C.; Bogousslavsky, J.; Boysen, G. Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: A review of available data. Eur. J. Neurol. 2006, 13, 581–598.
  5. Siekierka, E.M.; Eng, K.; Bassetti, C.; Blickenstorfer, A.; Cameirao, M.S.; Dietz, V.; Zimmerli, L. New technologies and concepts for rehabilitation in the acute phase of stroke: A collaborative matrix. Neurodegener. Dis. 2007, 4, 57–69.
  6. Rajsic, S.; Gothe, H.; Borba, H.H.; Sroczynski, G.; Vujicic, J.; Toell, T.; Siebert, U. Economic burden of stroke: A systematic review on post-stroke care. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2019, 20, 107–134.
  7. Di Carlo, A. Human and economic burden of stroke. Age Ageing 2009, 38, 4–5.
  8. Ovbiagele, B.; Goldstein, L.B.; Higashida, R.T.; Howard, V.J.; Johnston, S.C.; Khavjou, O.A.; Trogdon, J.G. Forecasting the future of stroke in the United States: A policy statement from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association. Stroke 2013, 44, 2361–2375.
  9. Mozaffarian, D.; Benjamin, E.J.; Go, A.S.; Arnett, D.K.; Blaha, M.J.; Cushman, M.; Turner, M.B. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2015 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015, 131, e29–e322.
  10. Rajsic, S.; Gothe, H.; Borba, H.H.; Vujicic, J.; Toell, T.; Siebert, U. Economic Burden of Stroke: A Systematic Review on Post-Stroke Care. Value Health 2016, 19, A633.
  11. Lekander, I.; Willers, C.; Von Euler, M.; Lilja, M.; Sunnerhagen, K.S.; Pessah-Rasmussen, H.; Borgström, F. Relationship between functional disability and costs one and two years post stroke. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174861.
  12. Elkind, M.S.; Sacco, R.L. Stroke risk factors and stroke prevention. In Seminars in Neurology; Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1998; Volume 18, pp. 429–440.
  13. Khan, N.I.; Naz, L.; Mushtaq, S.; Rukh, L.; Ali, S.; Hussain, Z. Ischemic stroke: Prevalence of modifiable risk factors in male and female patients in Pakistan. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 22, 62–67.
  14. Khan, S.N.; Vohra, E.A. Risk factors for stroke: A hospital based study. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2007, 23, 17–22.
  15. Broderick, J.P.; Brott, T.; Tomsick, T.; Huster, G.; Miller, R. The risk of subarachnoid and intracerebral hemorrhages in blacks as compared with whites. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992, 326, 733–736.
  16. O’donnell, M.J.; Xavier, D.; Liu, L.; Zhang, H.; Chin, S.L.; Rao-Melacini, P.; Yusuf, S. Risk factors for ischaemic and intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke in 22 countries (the INTERSTROKE study): A case-control study. Lancet 2010, 376, 112–123.
  17. Suk, S.H.; Sacco, R.L.; Boden-Albala, B.; Cheun, J.F.; Pittman, J.G.; Elkind, M.S.; Paik, M.C. Abdominal obesity and risk of ischemic stroke: The Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Stroke 2003, 34, 1586–1592.
  18. Denti, L.; Cecchetti, A.; Annoni, V.; Merli, M.F.; Ablondi, F.; Valenti, G. The role of lipid profile in determining the risk of ischemic stroke in the elderly: A case–control study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2003, 37, 51–62.
  19. Song, Y.M.; Kwon, S.U.; Sung, J.; Ebrahim, S.; Smith, G.D.; Sunwoo, S.; Yun, Y.S. Different risk factor profiles between subtypes of ischemic stroke. A case-control study in Korean men. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2005, 20, 605–612.
  20. Kim, Y.D.; Jung, Y.H.; Saposnik, G. Traditional risk factors for stroke in East Asia. J. Stroke 2016, 18, 273.
  21. Choudhury, M.J.H.; Chowdhury, M.T.I.; Nayeem, A.; Jahan, W.A. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors of stroke: A review update. J. Natl. Inst. Neurosci. Bangladesh 2015, 1, 22–26.
  22. White, H.; Boden-Albala, B.; Wang, C.; Elkind, M.S.; Rundek, T.; Wright, C.B.; Sacco, R.L. Ischemic stroke subtype incidence among whites, blacks, and Hispanics: The Northern Manhattan Study. Circulation 2005, 111, 1327–1331.
  23. Miah, M.N.A.; Azhar, M.A.; Rahman, A.; Halder, D.; Akteruzzaman, M.; Kundu, N.C. Risk factors of stroke in young and old age group-a comparative study. J. Med. 2012, 13, 138–142.
  24. Sacco, R.L.; Kargman, D.E.; Gu, Q.; Zamanillo, M.C. Race-ethnicity and determinants of intracranial atherosclerotic cerebral infarction: The Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Stroke 1995, 26, 14–20.
  25. Lee, E.J.; Kim, H.J.; Bae, J.M.; Kim, J.C.; Han, H.J.; Park, C.S.; Ryu, J.A. Relevance of common carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaque as risk factors for ischemic stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2007, 28, 916–919.
  26. Chambless, L.E.; Folsom, A.R.; Clegg, L.X.; Sharrett, A.R.; Shahar, E.; Nieto, F.J.; Evans, G. Carotid wall thickness is predictive of incident clinical stroke: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2000, 151, 478–487.
  27. Lackland, D.T.; Roccella, E.J.; Deutsch, A.F.; Fornage, M.; George, M.G.; Howard, G.; Towfighi, A. Factors influencing the decline in stroke mortality: A statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014, 45, 315–353.
  28. White, C.L.; Pergola, P.E.; Szychowski, J.M.; Talbert, R.; Cervantes-Arriaga, A.; Clark, H.D.; SPS3 Investigators. Blood pressure after recent stroke: Baseline findings from the secondary prevention of small subcortical strokes trial. Am. J. Hypertens. 2013, 26, 1114–1122.
  29. Tayal, A.H.; Tian, M.; Kelly, K.M.; Jones, S.C.; Wright, D.G.; Singh, D.; Gupta, R. 2008 Atrial fibrillation detected by mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry in cryptogenic TIA or stroke. Neurology 2008, 71, 1696–1701.
  30. Towfighi, A.; Zheng, L.; Ovbiagele, B. Weight of the obesity epidemic: Rising stroke rates among middle-aged women in the United States. Stroke 2010, 41, 1371–1375.
  31. Elijovich, L.; Josephson, S.A.; Fung, G.L.; Smith, W.S. Intermittent atrial fibrillation may account for a large proportion of otherwise cryptogenic stroke: A study of 30-day cardiac event monitors. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2009, 18, 185–189.
  32. Rincon, F.; Sacco, R.L.; Kranwinkel, G.; Xu, Q.; Paik, M.C.; Boden-Albala, B.; Elkind, M.S. Incidence and risk factors of intracranial atherosclerotic stroke: The Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2009, 28, 65–71.
  33. Jetten, J.; Haslam, C.; Pugliese, C.; Tonks, J.; Haslam, S.A. Declining autobiographical memory and the loss of identity: Effects on well-being. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2010, 32, 408–416.
  34. Baker, A.J.; Moulton, R.J.; MacMillan, V.H.; Shedden, P.M. Excitatory amino acids in cerebrospinal fluid following traumatic brain injury in humans. J. Neurosurg. 1993, 79, 369–372.
  35. Ali Özatik, M.; Kamil Göl, M.; Fansa, İ.; Uncu, H.; Alp Küçüker, Ş.; Küçükaksu, S.; Taşdemir, O. Risk factors for stroke following coronary artery bypass operations. J. Card. Surg. 2005, 20, 52–57.
  36. Owolabi, M.O.; Sarfo, F.; Akinyemi, R.; Gebregziabher, M.; Akpa, O.; Akpalu, A.; Wahab, K.; Obiako, R.; Owolabi, L.; Ovbiagele, P.B. Dominant modifiable risk factors for stroke in Ghana and Nigeria (SIREN): A case-control study. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e436–e446.
  37. Dijkers, M. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: A meta analysis of the effects of disablement components. Spinal Cord 1997, 35, 829–840.
  38. Beekhuizen, K.S.; Field-Fote, E.C. Massed practice versus massed practice with stimulation: Effects on upper extremity function and cortical plasticity in individuals with incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2005, 19, 33–45.
  39. Dietz, V.; Müller, R.; Colombo, G. Locomotor activity in spinal man: Significance of afferent input from joint and load receptors. Brain 2002, 125, 2626–2634.
  40. Blank, A.A.; French, J.A.; Pehlivan, A.U.; O’Malley, M.K. Current trends in robot-assisted upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: Promoting patient engagement in therapy. Curr. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Rep. 2014, 2, 184–195.
  41. McFarland, D.J.; Wolpaw, J.R. Brain-computer interface operation of robotic and prosthetic devices. Computer 2008, 41, 52–56.
  42. Kilgore, K.L.; Hoyen, H.A.; Bryden, A.M.; Hart, R.L.; Keith, M.W.; Peckham, P.H. An implanted upper-extremity neuroprosthesis using myoelectric control. J. Hand Surg. 2008, 33, 539–550.
  43. Mulcahey, M.J.; Smith, B.T.; Betz, R.R. Evaluation of the lower motor neuron integrity of upper extremity muscles in high level spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 1999, 37, 585–591.
  44. Dobkin, B.H. Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2004, 3, 528–536.
  45. Anwer, S.; Waris, A.; Sultan, H.; Butt, S.I.; Zafar, M.H.; Sarwar, M.; Pujari, A.N. Eye and voice-controlled human machine interface system for wheelchairs using image gradient approach. Sensors 2020, 20, 5510.
  46. Nudo, R.J.; Friel, K.M. Cortical plasticity after stroke: Implications for rehabilitation. Rev. Neurol. 1999, 155, 713–717.
  47. Duffau, H. Brain plasticity: From pathophysiological mechanisms to therapeutic applications. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2006, 13, 885–897.
  48. Johansson, B.B. Brain plasticity and stroke rehabilitation: The Willis lecture. Stroke 2000, 31, 223–230.
  49. Masiero, S.; Carraro, E. Upper limb movements and cerebral plasticity in post-stroke rehabilitation. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2008, 20, 103–108.
  50. Alon, G.; Levitt, A.F.; McCarthy, P.A. Functional electrical stimulation enhancement of upper extremity functional recovery during stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2007, 21, 207–215.
  51. Chan, M.K.L.; Tong, R.K.Y.; Chung, K.Y.K. Bilateral upper limb training with functional electric stimulation in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2009, 23, 357–365.
  52. Meadmore, K.L.; Exell, T.A.; Hallewell, E.; Hughes, A.M.; Freeman, C.T.; Kutlu, M.; Burridge, J.H. The application of precisely controlled functional electrical stimulation to the shoulder, elbow and wrist for upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A feasibility study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 1–11.
  53. Knutson, J.S.; Fu, M.J.; Sheffler, L.R.; Chae, J. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for motor restoration in hemiplegia. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. 2015, 26, 729.
  54. Rosewilliam, S.; Malhotra, S.; Roffe, C.; Jones, P.; Pandyan, A.D. Can surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the wrist and hand combined with routine therapy facilitate recovery of arm function in patients with stroke? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, 1715–1721.
  55. Hsu, S.S.; Hu, M.H.; Wang, Y.H.; Yip, P.K.; Chiu, J.W.; Hsieh, C.L. Dose-response relation between neuromuscular electrical stimulation and upper-extremity function in patients with stroke. Stroke 2010, 41, 821–824.
  56. Lin, Z.; Yan, T. Long-term effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for promoting motor recovery of the upper extremity after stroke. J. Rehabil. Med. 2011, 43, 506–510.
  57. Wang, R.Y.; Yang, Y.R.; Tsai, M.W.; Wang, W.T.; Chan, R.C. Effects of functional electric stimulation on upper limb motor function and shoulder range of motion in hemiplegic patients. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002, 81, 283–290.
  58. Kowalczewski, J.; Gritsenko, V.; Ashworth, N.; Ellaway, P.; Prochazka, A. Upper-extremity functional electric stimulation–assisted exercises on a workstation in the subacute phase of stroke recovery. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007, 88, 833–839.
  59. Eraifej, J.; Clark, W.; France, B.; Desando, S.; Moore, D. Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 1–21.
  60. Webster, B.R.; Celnik, P.A.; Cohen, L.G. Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation. NeuroRx 2006, 3, 474–481.
  61. Hallett, M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the human brain. Nature 2000, 406, 147–150.
  62. Siebner, H.; Rothwell, J. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: New insights into representational cortical plasticity. Exp. Brain Res. 2003, 148, 1–16.
  63. Paulus, W. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). In Supplements to Clinical Neurophysiology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 56, pp. 249–254.
  64. Wassermann, E.M.; Grafman, J. Recharging cognition with DC brain polarization. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005, 9, 503–505.
  65. Kubis, N. Non-invasive brain stimulation to enhance post-stroke recovery. Front. Neural Circuits 2016, 10, 56.
  66. Takeuchi, N.; Izumi, S.I. Noninvasive brain stimulation for motor recovery after stroke: Mechanisms and future views. Stroke Res. Treat. 2012, 2012.
  67. Takeuchi, N.; Tada, T.; Toshima, M.; Chuma, T.; Matsuo, Y.; Ikoma, K. Inhibition of the unaffected motor cortex by 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation enhances motor performance and training effect of the paretic hand in patients with chronic stroke. J. Rehabil. Med. 2008, 40, 298–303.
  68. Di Lazzaro, V.; Profice, P.; Pilato, F.; Capone, F.; Ranieri, F.; Pasqualetti, P.; Dileone, M. Motor cortex plasticity predicts recovery in acute stroke. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20, 1523–1528.
  69. Nowak, D.A.; Grefkes, C.; Ameli, M.; Fink, G.R. Interhemispheric competition after stroke: Brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2009, 23, 641–656.
  70. Takeuchi, N.; Chuma, T.; Matsuo, Y.; Watanabe, I.; Ikoma, K. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of contralesional primary motor cortex improves hand function after stroke. Stroke 2005, 36, 2681–2686.
  71. Nowak, D.A.; Bösl, K.; Podubeckà, J.; Carey, J.R. Noninvasive brain stimulation and motor recovery after stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2010, 28, 531–544.
  72. Lüdemann-Podubecká, J.; Bösl, K.; Rothhardt, S.; Verheyden, G.; Nowak, D.A. Transcranial direct current stimulation for motor recovery of upper limb function after stroke. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 47, 245–259.
  73. Lüdemann-Podubecká, J.; Bösl, K.; Nowak, D.A. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor recovery of the upper limb after stroke. Prog. Brain Res. 2015, 218, 281–311.
  74. Tosun, A.; Türe, S.; Askin, A.; Yardimci, E.U.; Demirdal, S.U.; Kurt Incesu, T.; Gelal, F.M. Effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on upper extremity motor recovery in the early period after stroke: A preliminary study. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2017, 24, 361–367.
  75. Levy, R.M.; Harvey, R.L.; Kissela, B.M.; Winstein, C.J.; Lutsep, H.L.; Parrish, T.B.; Venkatesan, L. Epidural electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation: Results of the prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blinded everest trial. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2016, 30, 107–119.
  76. Kleim, J.A.; Bruneau, R.; VandenBerg, P.; MacDonald, E.; Mulrooney, R.; Pocock, D. Motor cortex stimulation enhances motor recovery and reduces peri-infarct dysfunction following ischemic insult. Neurol. Res. 2003, 25, 789–793.
  77. Harvey, R.L.; Nudo, R.J. Cortical brain stimulation: A potential therapeutic agent for upper limb motor recovery following stroke. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2007, 14, 54–67.
  78. Katayama, Y.; Fukaya, C.; Yamamoto, T. Poststroke pain control by chronic motor cortex stimulation: Neurological characteristics predicting a favorable response. J. Neurosurg. 1998, 89, 585–591.
  79. Bittar, R.G.; Kar-Purkayastha, I.; Owen, S.L.; Bear, R.E.; Green, A.; Wang, S.; Aziz, T.Z. Deep brain stimulation for pain relief: A meta-analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2005, 12, 515–519.
  80. Sironi, V.A. Origin and evolution of deep brain stimulation. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2011, 5, 42.
  81. Laxpati, N.G.; Kasoff, W.S.; Gross, R.E. Deep brain stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy: Circuits, targets, and trials. Neurotherapeutics 2014, 11, 508–526.
  82. Elias, G.J.; Namasivayam, A.A.; Lozano, A.M. Deep brain stimulation for stroke: Current uses and future directions. Brain Stimul. 2018, 11, 3–28.
  83. Broeren, J.; Bjorkdahl, A.; Claesson, L.; Goude, D.; Lundgren-Nilsson, A.; Samuelsson, H.; Rydmark, M. Virtual rehabilitation after stroke. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2008, 136, 77.
  84. Laver, K.E.; Lange, B.; George, S.; Deutsch, J.E.; Saposnik, G.; Crotty, M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 11.
  85. Crosbie, J.H.; Lennon, S.; Basford, J.R.; McDonough, S.M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: Still more virtual than real. Disabil. Rehabil. 2007, 29, 1139–1146.
  86. 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, 52–61.
  87. Bohil, C.J.; Alicea, B.; Biocca, F.A. Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2011, 12, 752–762.
  88. Jack, D.; Boian, R.; Merians, A.S.; Tremaine, M.; Burdea, G.C.; Adamovich, S.V.; Poizner, H. Virtual reality-enhanced stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2001, 9, 308–318.
  89. Holden, M.K. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2005, 8, 187–211.
  90. Laver, K.; George, S.; Thomas, S.; Deutsch, J.; Crotty, M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation: An abridged version of a Cochrane review. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 51, 497–506.
  91. Brunner, I.; Skouen, J.S.; Hofstad, H.; Aßmuss, J.; Becker, F.; Pallesen, H.; Verheyden, G. Is upper limb virtual reality training more intensive than conventional training for patients in the subacute phase after stroke? An analysis of treatment intensity and content. BMC Neurol. 2016, 16, 1–7.
  92. Kim, D.Y.; Park, J.B. Virtual reality based stroke rehabilitation. J. Korean Med. Assoc./Taehan Uisa Hyophoe Chi 2013, 56, 16–22.
  93. Laver, K.; George, S.; Ratcliffe, J.; Crotty, M. Virtual reality stroke rehabilitation–hype or hope? Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2011, 58, 215–219.
  94. Almhdawi, K.A.; Mathiowetz, V.G.; White, M.; del Mas, R.C. Efficacy of Occupational Therapy Task-oriented Approach in Upper Extremity Post-stroke Rehabilitation. Occup. Ther. Int. 2016, 23, 444–456.
  95. de Sousa, D.G.; Harvey, L.A.; Dorsch, S.; Glinsky, J.V. Interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke: A systematic review. J. Physiother. 2018, 64, 210–221.
  96. Rensink, M.; Schuurmans, M.; Lindeman, E.; Hafsteinsdottir, T. Task-oriented training in rehabilitation after stroke: Systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009, 65, 737–754.
  97. Arya, K.N.; Pandian, S.; Kumar, D.; Puri, V. Task-based mirror therapy augmenting motor recovery in poststroke hemiparesis: A randomized controlled trial. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2015, 24, 1738–1748.
  98. Higgins, J.; Salbach, N.M.; Wood-Dauphinee, S.; Richards, C.L.; Côté, R.; Mayo, N.E. The effect of a task-oriented intervention on arm function in people with stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2006, 20, 296–310.
  99. French, B.; Thomas, L.H.; Coupe, J.; McMahon, N.E.; Connell, L.; Harrison, J.; Watkins, C.L. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 11, CD006073.
  100. Macko, R.F.; Ivey, F.M.; Forrester, L.W. Task-oriented aerobic exercise in chronic hemiparetic stroke: Training protocols and treatment effects. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2005, 12, 45–57.
  101. Wevers, L.; Van De Port, I.; Vermue, M.; Mead, G.; Kwakkel, G. Effects of task-oriented circuit class training on walking competency after stroke: A systematic review. Stroke 2009, 40, 2450–2459.
  102. Masiero, S.; Poli, P.; Rosati, G.; Zanotto, D.; Iosa, M.; Paolucci, S.; Morone, G. The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2014, 11, 187–198.
  103. Veerbeek, J.M.; Langbroek-Amersfoort, A.C.; Van Wegen, E.E.; Meskers, C.G.; Kwakkel, G. Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2017, 31, 107–121.
  104. Morone, G.; Paolucci, S.; Cherubini, A.; De Angelis, D.; Venturiero, V.; Coiro, P.; Iosa, M. Robot-assisted gait training for stroke patients: Current state of the art and perspectives of robotics. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2017, 13, 1303.
  105. Mehrholz, J.; Pohl, M.; Platz, T.; Kugler, J.; Elsner, B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 9, CD006876.
  106. Rodgers, H.; Bosomworth, H.; Krebs, H.I.; van Wijck, F.; Howel, D.; Wilson, N.; Shaw, L. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 51–62.
  107. Fasoli, S.E.; Adans-Dester, C.P. A paradigm shift: Rehabilitation robotics, cognitive skills training, and function after stroke. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 1088.
  108. Sarfo, F.S.; Ulasavets, U.; Opare-Sem, O.K.; Ovbiagele, B. Tele-rehabilitation after stroke: An updated systematic review of the literature. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2018, 27, 2306–2318.
  109. Knepley, K.D.; Mao, J.Z.; Wieczorek, P.; Okoye, F.O.; Jain, A.P.; Harel, N.Y. Impact of telerehabilitation for stroke-related deficits. Telemed. E-Health 2021, 27, 239–246.
  110. Johansson, T.; Wild, C. Telerehabilitation in stroke care—A systematic review. J. Telemed. Telecare 2011, 17, 1–6.
  111. Laver, K.E.; Adey-Wakeling, Z.; Crotty, M.; Lannin, N.A.; George, S.; Sherrington, C. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 1.
  112. Tyagi, S.; Lim, D.S.; Ho, W.H.; Koh, Y.Q.; Cai, V.; Koh, G.C.; Legido-Quigley, H. Acceptance of tele-rehabilitation by stroke patients: Perceived barriers and facilitators. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 99, 2472–2477.
  113. Cramer, S.C.; Dodakian, L.; Le, V.; McKenzie, A.; See, J.; Augsburger, R.; Heckhausen, J. A Feasibility Study of Expanded Home-Based Telerehabilitation After Stroke. Front. Neurol. 2021, 11, 1807.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Health Care Sciences & Services
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Saba Anwer
View Times: 317
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 11 Feb 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback