Effects of EMG-triggered FES during trunk pattern in PNF on balance and gait performance in persons with stroke

Optimal proprioceptive training combined with rehabilitation regimen for lower limb dysfunction in stroke patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

This study aims to evaluate the optimal rehabilitation regimen for lower limb dysfunction in stroke patients by analyzing the effects of proprioceptive training (PT) in combination with different rehabilitation interventions.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to April 23, 2024, were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2.0). Network meta-analysis was performed via R studio and STATA 15.0.

Results

A total of 64 RCTs involving 4,084 stroke patients with lower limb dysfunction were included. For balance ability in stroke patients, PT in combination with motor relearning programme (PT + MRP) demonstrated the optimal rehabilitation effect [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 77.94%]. For lower limb motor function, PT in combination with closed kinematic chain exercises (PT + CKCE) was most effective (SUCRA 88.39%). For walking ability, PT in combination with visual feedback training (PT + VFT) was superior (SUCRA 96.61%). Cluster analysis indicated that PT + CKCE and PT + RT1 were the optimal rehabilitation regimens for lower limb dysfunction in stroke patients.

Conclusion

PT+MRP was the optimal rehabilitation regimen for improving balance ability in stroke patients; PT+CKCE was the best for enhancing lower limb motor function; and PT+VFT was most effective for improving walking ability. Overall, PT+CKCE and PT+RT1 represented the optimal rehabilitation regimens for lower limb dysfunction in stroke patients, while PT+RT1 is most effective within 5 days of stroke onset.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetailsCRD42024548889, PROSPERO CRD42024548889.

Trunk training following stroke

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of post-stroke trunk training. Findings suggest that trunk training improves trunk function and activity or the execution of a task or action by an individual. But it is unclear what effect trunk training has on daily life activities, quality of life, and other outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of trunk training after stroke on activities of daily living (ADL), trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life when comparing with both dose-matched as non-dose-matched control groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 25 October 2021. We searched trial registries to identify additional relevant published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. We hand searched the bibliographies of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials comparing trunk training versus non-dose-matched or dose-matched control therapy including adults (18 years or older) with either ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. Outcome measures of trials included ADL, trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two main analyses were carried out. The first analysis included trials where the therapy duration of control intervention was non-dose-matched with the therapy duration of the experimental group and the second analysis where there was comparison with a dose-matched control intervention (equal therapy duration in both the control as in the experimental group).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 trials with a total of 2585 participants. In the analysis of the non-dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with different training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we could see that trunk training had a positive effect on ADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.24; P < 0.001; 5 trials; 283 participants; very low-certainty evidence), trunk function (SMD 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.71; P < 0.001; 14 trials, 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.15; P = 0.006; 2 trials, 74 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.009 to 1.59; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 410 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; P < 0.001; 1 trial, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.89; P = 0.01; 2 trials, 108 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-dose-matched trunk training led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio: 7.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 400.89; 6 trials, 201 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the analysis of the dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with equal training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we saw that trunk training had a positive effect on trunk function (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; P < 0.001; 36 trials, 1217 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; P < 0.001; 22 trials, 917 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.87; P < 0.001; 4 trials, 254 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; P < 0.001; 19 trials, 535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; P < 0.001; 2 trials, 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), but not for ADL (SMD 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.37; P = 0.48; 9 trials; 229 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.76, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.70; P = 0.11; 1 trial, 19 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.56; P = 0.38; 3 trials, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trunk training also led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR): 7.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 372.38; 10 trials, 381 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time post stroke led to a significant subgroup difference for standing balance (P < 0.001) in non-dose-matched therapy. In non-dose-matched therapy, different trunk therapy approaches had a significant effect on ADL (< 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001) and standing balance (< 0.001). When participants received dose-matched therapy, analysis of subgroup differences showed that the trunk therapy approach had a significant effect on ADL (P = 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001), arm-hand activity (P < 0.001), standing balance (P = 0.002), and leg function (P = 0.002). Also for dose-matched therapy, subgroup analysis for time post stroke resulted in a significant difference for the outcomes standing balance (P < 0.001), walking ability (P = 0.003) and leg function (P < 0.001), time post stroke significantly modified the effect of intervention.  Core-stability trunk (15 trials), selective-trunk (14 trials) and unstable-trunk (16 trials) training approaches were mostly applied in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to suggest that trunk training as part of rehabilitation improves ADL, trunk function, standing balance, walking ability, upper and lower limb function, and quality of life in people after stroke. Core-stability, selective-, and unstable-trunk training were the trunk training approaches mostly applied in the included trials. When considering only trials with a low risk of bias, results were mostly confirmed, with very low to moderate certainty, depending on the outcome.

Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with trunk-targeted, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Stroke is the foremost cause of death and disability worldwide. Improving upper extremity function and quality of life are two paramount therapeutic targets during rehabilitation.

Aim of the study

To investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with trunk-targeted proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) on impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions of subjects with subacute stroke.

Methodology

Fifty-four subjects with subacute stroke were divided into three groups using block randomization. All three groups received rehabilitation sessions lasting 90 min in duration, four times per week, for 6 weeks. Group 1 (n = 18) received conventional physical therapy (CPT); group 2 (n = 18) received CPT, trunk-targeted PNF, and sham tDCS; and group 3 (n = 18) received CPT, trunk-targeted PNF, and bihemispheric motor cortex stimulation with tDCS. Changes in motor impairment, motor activity, and health-related quality of life assessments were outcome measures.

Results

A two-way linear mixed model analysis revealed interaction effects (group × time) for all outcome measurements (Trunk Impairment Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after stroke upper extremity subsection, Wolf Motor Function Test, 10-Meter Walk Test, and the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale; all p < 0.01 or lower). Overall, post-pre mean differences demonstrate more substantial improvement in the active tDCS group, followed by sham stimulation associated with the PNF group and the group that received CPT alone.

Conclusion

Trunk-targeted PNF combined with bihemispheric tDCS along with CPT engender larger improvements in upper extremity and trunk impairment, upper limb function, gait speed, and quality of life in the subacute stroke population.