Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for preventing shoulder subluxation after stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder subluxation caused by paralysis after stroke is a serious issue affecting shoulder pain and functional prognosis. However, its preventive treatment has not been fully investigated. AIM: To investigate the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) on the prevention of shoulder subluxation. DESIGN: A single-center, parallel-group, prospective randomized, open-blinded, end-point study. SETTING: Convalescent rehabilitation ward. POPULATION: We included 50 inpatients in the convalescent rehabilitation ward with post-stroke, having upper limb paralysis, and the acromio-humeral interval (AHI) was within 1/2 finger-breadth. METHODS: A blinded computer-based allocation system was used to randomly assign patients into two groups: 1) conventional rehabilitation plus rPMS therapy (rPMS group, N=25); and 2) conventional rehabilitation alone (control group, N=25). Blinded assessors evaluated the patients before the intervention (T0), 6 weeks after (T1), and 12 weeks after (T2). The primary outcome was the change in AHIs from T0 to T1 between the groups. In contrast, the secondary outcomes were shoulder pain, spasticity, active range of motion, and Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity (FMA-UE) score. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients in the rPMS group and 24 in the control group completed T1, whereas 16 in the rPMS group and 11 in the control group completed T2. The change in AHI was significantly lower in the rPMS group than in the control group ([95% CI, -5.15 to -0.390], P=0.023). Within-group analysis showed that AHI in the rPMS group did not change significantly, whereas it increased in the control group (P=0.004). There were no significant differences between T1 and T2 within or between the groups. Moreover, AHI did not show differences in patients with severe impairment but decreased in the rPMS group in patients with mild impairment (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The rPMS may be a new modality for preventing shoulder subluxation. The association between motor impairment and the sustained effect needs to be further examined. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Applying rPMS to the muscles of the paralyzed shoulder after a stroke may prevent shoulder subluxation.

Requirements for Eliciting a Spastic Response With Passive Joint Movements and the Influence of Velocity on Response Patterns: An Experimental Study of Velocity-Response Relationships in Mild Spasticity With Repeated-Measures Analysis.

Background: Spasticity is defined as a velocity-dependent increase in tonic stretch reflexes and is manually assessed in clinical practice. However, the best method for the clinical assessment of spasticity has not been objectively described. This study analyzed the clinical procedure to assess spasticity of the elbow joint using an electrogoniometer and investigated the appropriate velocity required to elicit a spastic response and the influence of velocity on the kinematic response pattern. Methods: This study included eight healthy individuals and 15 patients with spasticity who scored 1 or 1+ on the modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Examiners were instructed to manually assess spasticity twice at two different velocities (slow and fast velocity conditions). During the assessment, velocity, deceleration value, and angle [described as the % range of motion (%ROM)] at the moment of resistance were measured using an electrogoniometer. Differences between the slow and fast conditions were evaluated. In addition, variations among the fast condition such as the responses against passive elbow extension at <200, 200-300, 300-400, 400°/s velocities were compared between the MAS 1+, MAS 1, and control groups. Results: Significant differences were observed in the angular deceleration value and %ROM in the fast velocity condition (417 ± 80°/s) between patients and healthy individuals, but there was no difference in the slow velocity condition (103 ± 29°/s). In addition, the deceleration values were significantly different between the MAS 1 and MAS 1+ groups in velocity conditions faster than 300°/s. In contrast, the value of %ROM plateaued when the velocity was faster than 200°/s. Conclusion: The velocity of the passive motion had a significant effect on the response pattern of the elbow joint. The velocity-response pattern differed between deceleration and the angle at which the catch occurred; the value of deceleration value for passive motion was highly dependent on the velocity, while the %ROM was relatively stable above a certain velocity threshold. These results provide clues for accurate assessment of spasticity in clinical practice.