Variation in the rate of recovery in motor function between the upper and lower limbs in patients with stroke: some proposed hypotheses and their implications for research and practice

Loss of functional movement is a common consequence of stroke for which a wide range of interventions has been developed. In this Review, we aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on interventions for motor recovery after stroke through the evaluation of systematic reviews, supplemented by recent randomised controlled trials. Most trials were small and had some design limitations. Improvements in recovery of arm function were seen for constraint-induced movement therapy, electromyographic biofeedback, mental practice with motor imagery, and robotics. Improvements in transfer ability or balance were seen with repetitive task training, biofeedback, and training with a moving platform. Physical fitness training, high-intensity therapy (usually physiotherapy), and repetitive task training improved walking speed. Although the existing evidence is limited by poor trial designs, some treatments do show promise for improving motor recovery, particularly those that have focused on high-intensity and repetitive task-specific practice.

To collect and integrate existing data concerning the occurrence, extent, time course, and prognostic determinants of motor recovery after stroke using a systematic methodologic approach. A computer-aided search in bibliographic databases was done of longitudinal cohort studies, original prognostic studies, and randomized controlled trials published in the period 1966 to November 2001, which was expanded by references from retrieved articles and narrative reviews. After a preliminary screening, internal, external, and statistical validity was assessed by a priori methodologic criteria, with special emphasis on the internal validity. The studies finally selected were discussed, based on the quantitative analysis of the outcome measures and prognostic determinants. Meta-analysis was pursued, but was not possible because of substantial heterogeneity. The search resulted in 174 potentially relevant studies, of which 80 passed the preliminary screening and were subjected to further methodologic assessment; 14 studies were finally selected. Approximately 65% of the hospitalized stroke survivors with initial motor deficits of the lower extremity showed some degree of motor recovery. In the case of paralysis, complete motor recovery occurred in less than 15% of the patients, both for the upper and lower extremities. Hospitalized patients with small lacunar strokes showed relatively good motor recovery. The recovery period in patients with severe stroke was twice as long as in patients with mild stroke. The initial grade of paresis was the most important predictor for motor recovery (odds ratios [OR], >4). Objective analysis of the motor pathways by motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) showed even higher ORs (ORs, >20). Our knowledge of motor recovery after stroke in more accurate, quantitative, and qualitive terms is still limited. Nevertheless, our data synthesis and quantitative analysis comprises data from many methodologically robust studies, which may support the clinician in the management of stroke patients. With respect to early prognosis of motor recovery, our review confirms clinical experience that the initial grade of paresis (as measured on admission in the hospital) is the most important predictor, although the accuracy of prediction rapidly improves during the first few days after stroke. Initial paralysis implies the worst prognosis for subsequent motor recovery. Remarkably, the prognostic accuracy of MEPs appears much higher than that of clinical examination for different subgroups of patients. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) was developed to overcome upper limb impairments after stroke and is the most investigated intervention for the rehabilitation of patients. Original CIMT includes constraining of the non-paretic arm and task-oriented training. Modified versions also apply constraining of the non-paretic arm, but not as intensive as original CIMT. Behavioural strategies are mostly absent for both modified and original CIMT. With forced use therapy, only constraining of the non-paretic arm is applied. The original and modified types of CIMT have beneficial effects on motor function, arm-hand activities, and self-reported arm-hand functioning in daily life, immediately after treatment and at long-term follow-up, whereas there is no evidence for the efficacy of constraint alone (as used in forced use therapy). The type of CIMT, timing, or intensity of practice do not seem to affect patient outcomes. Although the underlying mechanisms that drive modified and original CIMT are still poorly understood, findings from kinematic studies suggest that improvements are mainly based on adaptations through learning to optimise the use of intact end-effectors in patients with some voluntary motor control of wrist and finger extensors after stroke.