Quantifying neural and non-neural components of wrist hyper-resistance after stroke
Comparing two instrumented assessment methods
Aukje Andringa (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Carel G M Meskers (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Northwestern University, Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center Reade)
Ingrid van de Port (Revant Rehabilitation Center)
Sarah Zandvliet (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Larissa Scholte (Student TU Delft, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
J.H. de Groot (Leiden University Medical Center, TU Delft - Biomechanical Engineering)
Gert Kwakkel (Northwestern University, Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center Reade, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
Erwin E.H. van Wegen (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Patients with poor upper limb motor recovery after stroke are likely to develop increased resistance to passive wrist extension, i.e., wrist hyper-resistance. Quantification of the underlying neural and non-neural elastic components is of clinical interest. This cross-sectional study compared two methods: a commercially available device (NeuroFlexor®) with an experimental EMG-based device (Wristalyzer) in 43 patients with chronic stroke. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (r) between components, modified Ashworth scale (MAS) and range of passive wrist extension (PRoM) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Neural as well as elastic components assessed by both devices were associated (r = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.38-0.77 and r = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.28–0.72, respectively). The neural component assessed by the NeuroFlexor® associated significantly with the elastic components of NeuroFlexor® (r = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.18–0.67) and Wristalyzer (r = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.06–0.59). The neural component assessed by the Wristalyzer was not associated with the elastic components of both devices. Neural and elastic components of both devices associated similarly with the MAS (r = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.34–0.75 vs. 0.49, 95%CI: 0.22–0.69 and r = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.25–0.70 vs. 0.30, 95%CI: 0.00–0.55); elastic components associated with PRoM (r = -0.44, 95%CI: -0.65- -0.16 vs. -0.74, 95%CI: -0.85- -0.57 for NeuroFlexor® and Wristalyzer respectively). Results demonstrate that both methods perform similarly regarding the quantification of neural and elastic wrist hyper-resistance components and have an added value when compared to clinical assessment with the MAS alone. The added value of EMG in the discrimination between neural and non-neural components requires further investigation.
help_outline