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

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Neurorehabil Neural Repair ; 33(9): 707-717, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31315515

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Reabilitação do Acidente Vascular Cerebral/métodos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/fisiopatologia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos Cross-Over , Avaliação da Deficiência , Feminino , Lateralidade Funcional , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Biológicos , Córtex Motor/fisiopatologia , Paresia/etiologia , Paresia/reabilitação , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana
2.
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am ; 26(4): 759-74, 2015 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26522911

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Reabilitação do Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Estimulação Magnética Transcraniana/métodos , Extremidade Superior/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/fisiopatologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA