Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Neurorehabil Neural Repair ; 33(9): 707-717, 2019 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31315515

RESUMEN

Background. Upper-limb chronic stroke hemiplegia was once thought to persist because of disproportionate amounts of inhibition imposed from the contralesional on the ipsilesional hemisphere. Thus, one rehabilitation strategy involves discouraging engagement of the contralesional hemisphere by only engaging the impaired upper limb with intensive unilateral activities. However, this premise has recently been debated and has been shown to be task specific and/or apply only to a subset of the stroke population. Bilateral rehabilitation, conversely, engages both hemispheres and has been shown to benefit motor recovery. To determine what neurophysiological strategies bilateral therapies may engage, we compared the effects of a bilateral and unilateral based therapy using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Methods. We adopted a peripheral electrical stimulation paradigm where participants received 1 session of bilateral contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) and 1 session of unilateral cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (cNMES) in a repeated-measures design. In all, 15 chronic stroke participants with a wide range of motor impairments (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score: 15 [severe] to 63 [mild]) underwent single 1-hour sessions of CCFES and cNMES. We measured whether CCFES and cNMES produced different effects on interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) to the ipsilesional hemisphere, ipsilesional corticospinal output, and ipsilateral corticospinal output originating from the contralesional hemisphere. Results. CCFES reduced IHI and maintained ipsilesional output when compared with cNMES. We found no effect on ipsilateral output for either condition. Finally, the less-impaired participants demonstrated a greater increase in ipsilesional output following CCFES. Conclusions. Our results suggest that bilateral therapies are capable of alleviating inhibition on the ipsilesional hemisphere and enhancing output to the paretic limb.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular/métodos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/fisiopatología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios Cruzados , Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Femenino , Lateralidad Funcional , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Biológicos , Corteza Motora/fisiopatología , Paresia/etiología , Paresia/rehabilitación , Recuperación de la Función , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal
2.
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am ; 26(4): 759-74, 2015 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26522911

RESUMEN

Despite showing early promise, several recent clinical trials of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) failed to augment rehabilitative outcomes of the paretic upper limb. This article addresses why pairing NIBS with unilateral approaches is weakly generalizable to patients in all ranges of impairments. The article also addresses whether alternate therapies are better suited for the more impaired patients, where they may be more feasible and offer neurophysiologic advantages not offered with unilateral therapies. The article concludes by providing insight on how to create NIBS paradigms that are tailored to distinctly augment the effects of therapies across patients with varying degrees of impairment.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Recuperación de la Función , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal/métodos , Extremidad Superior/fisiopatología , Humanos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/fisiopatología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA