Elsevier

The Lancet Neurology

Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2009, Pages 741-754
The Lancet Neurology

Review
Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4Get rights and content

Summary

Loss of functional movement is a common consequence of stroke for which a wide range of interventions has been developed. In this Review, we aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on interventions for motor recovery after stroke through the evaluation of systematic reviews, supplemented by recent randomised controlled trials. Most trials were small and had some design limitations. Improvements in recovery of arm function were seen for constraint-induced movement therapy, electromyographic biofeedback, mental practice with motor imagery, and robotics. Improvements in transfer ability or balance were seen with repetitive task training, biofeedback, and training with a moving platform. Physical fitness training, high-intensity therapy (usually physiotherapy), and repetitive task training improved walking speed. Although the existing evidence is limited by poor trial designs, some treatments do show promise for improving motor recovery, particularly those that have focused on high-intensity and repetitive task-specific practice.

Introduction

Stroke is a common global health-care problem that is serious and disabling.1 In high-income countries, stroke is the third most common cause of death and is the main cause of acquired adult disability.1, 2 However, as most patients with stroke survive the initial injury, the biggest effect on patients and families is usually through long-term impairment, limitation of activities (disability), and reduced participation (handicap).

The most common and widely recognised impairment caused by stroke is motor impairment, which can be regarded as a loss or limitation of function in muscle control or movement or a limitation in mobility.3 Motor impairment after stroke typically affects the control of movement of the face, arm, and leg of one side of the body1 and affects about 80% of patients. Therefore, much of the focus of stroke rehabilitation, and in particular the work of physiotherapists and occupational therapists, is on the recovery of impaired movement and the associated functions. There seems to be a direct relation between motor impairment and function; for example, independence in walking (function) has been correlated with lower-limb strength (impairment).4 Therefore, the ultimate goal of therapy for lower-limb motor impairment is to improve the function of walking and recovery of movement. In this Review, motor impairment and its associated functional activities are regarded as part of a continuum.

Motor impairment can be caused by ischaemic or haemorrhagic injury to the motor cortex, premotor cortex, motor tracts, or associated pathways in the cerebrum or cerebellum.1 Such impairments affect an individual's ability to complete everyday activities (disability) and affect participation in everyday life situations.5 A lack of consistency is evident among researchers and clinicians in the use of terminology that describes changes in motor ability after stroke.6 Changes in motor ability might occur via several mechanisms: restitution, substitution, or compensation.7 Levin and co-workers,6 however, distinguished motor recovery and motor compensation in accordance with the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework and proposed that motor recovery relates to: restoration of function in neural tissue that was initially lost; restoration of ability to perform movement in the same way as before injury; and successful task completion as typically done by individuals who are not disabled. Types of motor compensation in these three areas include the acquisition by neural tissue of a function that it did not have before the injury; performance of a movement in a new way; and successful task completion by use of different techniques.6

In accordance with these definitions, in this Review we focused on outcomes associated with body functions or structure (impairment) and activity (functional). We favoured activity outcomes when these were used in addition to impairment outcomes as these were believed to be more clinically useful. However, we did not focus on motor recovery or motor compensation separately, as many of the outcomes (particularly those measuring activity) do not distinguish between improvements associated with increasing compensation and movement patterns. Although we recognise the potential limitations of this approach, this Review can only outline the outcomes used in the trials.

Motor recovery after stroke is complex and confusing. Many interventions have been developed to try to aid motor recovery (recovery of impairment and associated function), and many randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews have been done.8 Most of these interventions do not explicitly target a specific pathophysiological process and have been tested using a variety of patient groups and outcome measures. We have, therefore, taken a pragmatic, empirical approach to describing and reviewing these interventions.

In this Review, we summarise the available evidence for the treatment of motor impairment and restoration of motor function after stroke. Our aims were to: (i) summarise the available evidence from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials; (ii) identify areas for which interventions show promise of efficacy; and (iii) relate this information to the current guideline advice on clinical management.

We used a range of approaches to identify relevant interventions, which included expert opinion,9 the views of multidisciplinary focus groups, and systematic searching of relevant texts and guidelines.10 A focus on recovery of impairment of specific muscles, muscle groups (such as muscle tone or muscle length), or related impairments (such as pain or contractures) was beyond the scope of this Review. Instead, we focus on the effect of interventions on recovery in four key areas of movement and function that were believed to best encapsulate the targets of the available interventions: (1) upper-limb (arm and hand) movement and function; (2) gait (walking ability; as this is a primary function of the lower limbs); (3) balance (as this is a primary function of the trunk); and (4) mobility (as this combines upper-limb function, lower-limb function, and balance to enable normal movements).

Section snippets

Search strategy and selection criteria

We hand-searched the Cochrane Library for all systematic reviews that included randomised trials of interventions to promote motor recovery (recovery of impairment or related function) after stroke and that had been registered with the Cochrane Stroke Group by March, 2009. We chose this approach because several systematic reviews have been done in (or overlap with) this area. We therefore sought to use the best available systematic reviews and to supplement these (when necessary) with

Interventions identified

We identified 19 categories of intervention relevant to motor recovery after stroke that were included in a Cochrane review, other review, or individual randomised trial (figure 1; table 1). We identified one intervention (the use of walking aids) for which we were unable to identify any relevant evidence.

Evidence identified

Table 1 outlines the intervention categories (with an accompanying description and rationale for that intervention), intervention targets (upper limb or lower limb, balance, or gait), and the

Conclusions

We have identified a broad range of interventions that have been developed to assist motor recovery (movement and related functions) after stroke. Many of these interventions have been subjected to evaluation in randomised controlled trials and their results synthesised in systematic reviews. Before discussing the implications of our Review, it is worth considering the strength and weaknesses of our approach.

References (180)

  • CY Wu et al.

    Kinematic and clinical analyses of upper extremity movements after constraint induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (2007)
  • S Peurala et al.

    The effectiveness of body weight-supported gait training and floor walking in patients with chronic stroke

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (2005)
  • RK Tong et al.

    Effectiveness of gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer, with and without functional electric stimulation, in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (2006)
  • JH Cauraugh et al.

    Chronic stroke motor recovery: duration of active neuromuscular stimulation

    J Neurol Sci

    (2003)
  • G Francisco et al.

    Electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation for improving the arm function of acute stroke survivors: a randomized pilot study

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (1998)
  • C Warlow et al.

    Stroke: practical management

    (2008)
  • World health report 2003

    (2003)
  • D Wade

    Measurement in neurological rehabilitation

    (1992)
  • International classification of functioning, disability and health

    (2001)
  • MF Levin et al.

    What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke?

    Neurorehabil Neural Repair

    (2008)
  • B Dobkin et al.

    Principles of recovery after stroke

  • Sandercock P, Algra A, Anderson C, et al. Cochrane Stroke Group. About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review...
  • L Legg et al.

    A multidisciplinary research agenda for stroke rehabilitation

    Bri J Ther Rehabil

    (2000)
  • National clinical guidelines for stroke

    (2008)
  • J Cohen

    Statisitcial power analysis for the behavioural sciences

    (1988)
  • Clinical Evidence: BMJ Publishing Group. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/guide.jsp (accessed April,...
  • A Pollock et al.

    Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2007)
  • P Duncan et al.

    A randomized, controlled pilot study of a home-based exercise program for individuals with mild and moderate stroke

    Stroke

    (1998)
  • P Duncan et al.

    Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke

    Stroke

    (2003)
  • T Wade et al.

    Physiotherapy intervention late after stroke and mobility

    BMJ

    (1992)
  • NM Salbach et al.

    A task-orientated intervention enhances walking distance and speed in the first year post stroke: a randomized controlled trial

    Clin Rehabil

    (2004)
  • CM Dean et al.

    Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke

    Stroke

    (1997)
  • C Luke et al.

    Outcomes of the Bobath concept on upper limb recovery following stroke

    Clin Rehabil

    (2004)
  • DA Gelber

    Comparison of two therapy approaches in the rehabilitation of the pure motor hemiparetic stroke patient

    J Neurol Rehabil

    (1995)
  • B Langhammer et al.

    Bobath or motor relearning rrogramme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study

    Clin Rehabil

    (2000)
  • T Platz et al.

    Impairment-oriented training or Bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke: a single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial

    Clin Rehabil

    (2005)
  • PM Van Vliet et al.

    Comparison of Bobath based and movement science based treatment for stroke: a randomised controlled trial

    J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

    (2005)
  • MK Logigian et al.

    Clinical exercise trial for stroke patient

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (1983)
  • R Barclay-Goddard et al.

    Force platform feedback for standing balance training after stroke

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2004)
  • MY Lee et al.

    Using biofeedback for standing steadiness, weight-bearing training

    IEEE Eng Med Biol

    (1996)
  • CM Sackley et al.

    Single blind randomized controlled trial of visual feedback after stroke: effects on stance symmetry and function

    Disabil Rehabil

    (1997)
  • A Shumway-Cook et al.

    Postural sway biofeedback: its effects on reestablishing stance stability in hemiplegic patients

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (1988)
  • AMK Wong et al.

    The development and clinical evaluation of a standing biofeedback trainer

    J Rehabil Res Dev

    (1997)
  • C Walker et al.

    Use of visual feedback in retraining balance following acute stroke

    Phys Ther

    (2000)
  • RA Geiger et al.

    Balance and mobility following stroke: effects of physical therapy interventions with and without biofeedback/forceplate training

    Phys Ther

    (2001)
  • G Yavuzer et al.

    The effects of balance training on gait late after stroke: a randomised controlled trial

    Clin Rehabil

    (2006)
  • S Olney et al.

    Effects of computer assisted gait training (BioTRAC) in early stroke: a randomized clinical trial

    Neurol Rev

    (1997)
  • AR Mandel et al.

    Electromyographic versus rhythmic positional biofeedback in computerized gait retraining with stroke patients

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (1990)
  • ME Morris et al.

    Electrogoniometric feedback: its effect on genu recurvatum in stroke

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (1992)
  • Cited by (1554)

    • Evaluating the axonal injury and predicting the motor function recovery in supratentorial acute stroke patients

      2024, Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery: Advanced Techniques and Case Management
    • Biomarkers of Motor Outcomes After Stroke

      2024, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text