Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship between Movement Stereotype and Focus Location in the Early Recovery Period after Mild Ischemic Stroke

  • Published:
Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Objectives. To study the characteristics of the movement stereotype in the early recovery period of ischemic stroke in the basin of the internal carotid artery and the vertebrobasilar system. Materials and methods. Eleven patients (five men, six women, mean age 57.2 ± 5.2 years) were studied 4–6 weeks after ischemic stroke. Initial scores on the NIHSS averaged 6.2 ± 0.8, with 3.9 ± 0.7/3.7 ± 0.8 points for arm/hand paresis and 4.3 ± 0.6/4.0 ± 0.5 points for leg/foot paresis. Foci were located in the basin of the internal carotid artery in seven patients and in the vertebrobasilar system in four. Investigations were run on admission and after 2–2.5 weeks. Changes on the FIM and Ashworth spasticity scales, a hand dexterity test (nine hole peg test, NHPT), and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) were evaluated, along with changes on the Berg balance test and the 20-point vertigo scale, the MMSE, and the Beck and Spielberger questionnaires. Video analysis of movements was carried out using a Physiomed Smart system (Physiomed, Germany) using the Davis protocol. Results. On the background of rehabilitation measures, all patients showed decreases in the severity of paresis, improvements on the FIM, Ashworth, and Berg scales and on the NHPT and TUG tests. Patients with foci in the vertebrobasilar system, in contrast to those with foci in the basin of the internal carotid artery, had impairments to balance detected on the 20-point vertigo scale. On video analysis, all patients showed changes in the movement stereotype in the form of shortening of the length and increases in the width of the gait, with decreases in speed and lengthening of the stepping cycle; these changes were more marked for foci in the vertebrobasilar system. A distinguishing feature for foci located in the vertebrobasilar system was forward tilting of the pelvis, while lateral tilting of the pelvis was seen with foci located in the basin of the internal carotid artery. Conclusions. Focus location in mild ischemic stroke can affect the features of recovery and movement stereotypy, and this should be considered in rehabilitating these patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. V. L. Feigin, M. H. Forouzanfar, R. Krishnamurthi, et al., “Global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors study 2010 (GBD 2010) and the GBD Stroke Experts Group. Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,” Lancet, 383, No. 9913, 245–254 (2014), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61953-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Nichols, N. Townsend, P. Scarborough, and M. Rayner, “Cardiovascular disease in Europe 2014: epidemiological update,” Eur. Heart. J., 35, No. 42, 2950–2959 (2014), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu299.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. R. V. Krishnamurthi, V. L. Feigin, M. H. Forouzanfar, et al., “Global burden of diseases, injuries, risk factors study 2010 (GBD 2010); GBD Stroke Experts Group. Global and regional burden of first-ever ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke during 1990–2010: Findings from the global burden of disease study 2010,” Lancet Glob. Health, 1, No. 5, 259–281 (2013), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70089-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S. L. Crichton, B. D. Bray, C. McKevitt, et al., “Patient outcomes up to 15 years after stroke: survival, disability, quality of life, cognition and mental health,” J Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 87, No. 10, 1091–1098 (2016), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2016-313361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. K. Takakusaki, “Neurophysiology of gait: From the spinal cord to the frontal lobe,” Mov. Disord., 28, No. 11, 1483–1491 (2013), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. D. V. Skvortsov, “Clinical analysis of movements,” in: Gait Analysis, Stimul, Moscow (1996).

  7. С. L. Richards, F. Malouin, and S. Wood-Dauphinee, “Gait velocity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke,” in: Gait Analysis: Theory and Applications, R. L. Craik and C. A. Oatis (eds.), Mosbi, Saint Louis (1995), pp. 355–364.

  8. D. A. Winter, The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological, Waterloo Biomechanics, University of Waterloo Press, Ontario (1990), 2nd ed.

  9. J. H. Hollman, E. M. McDade, and R. C. Petersen, “Normative spatiotemporal gait parameters in older adults,” Gait Posture, 34, No. 1, 111–118 (2011), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.03.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. C. M. Kim and J. J. Eng, “Magnitude and pattern of 3D kinematic and kinetic gait profiles in persons with stroke: Relationship to walking speed,” Gait Posture, 20, No. 2, 140–146 (2004), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2003.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. V. A. Stanhope, B. A. Knarr, D. S. Reisman, and J. S. Higginson, “Frontal plane compensatory strategies associated with self-selected walking speed in individuals post-stroke,” Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon), 29, No. 5, 518–522 (2014), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Y. Lin, Y. R. Yang, S. J. Cheng, and R. Y. Wang, “The relation between ankle impairments and gait velocity and symmetry in people with stroke,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 87, No. 4, 562–568 (2006), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.12.042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. C. M. Tyrell, M. A. Roos, K. S. Rudolph, and D. S. Reisman, “Influence of systematic increases in treadmill walking speed on gait kinematics after stroke,” Phys. Ther., 91, No. 3, 392–403 (2011), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Dawes, C. Enzinger, H. Johansen-Berg, et al., “Walking performance and its recovery in chronic stroke in relation to extent of lesion overlap with the descending motor tract,” Exp. Brain Res., 186, No. 2, 325–333 (2008), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1237-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. I. Moon, H. J. Lee, and S. Y. Yoon, “Lesion location associated with balance recovery and gait velocity change after rehabilitation in stroke patients,” Neuroradiology, 59, No. 6, 609–618 (2017), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-017-1840-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. D. V. Skvortsov, “Methods for studying movement kinematics and current standards. Video analysis,” Lecheb. Fizkul. Sportiv. Med., 12, 4–10 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. S. Stokic, T. S. Horn, J. M. Ramshur, and J. W. Chow, “Agreement between temporospatial gait parameters of an electronic walkway and a motion capture system in healthy and chronic stroke populations,” Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 88, No. 6, 437–444 (2009), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181a5b1ec.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. T. P. Andriacchi and E. J. Alexander, “Studies of human locomotion: past, present and future,” J. Biomech., 33, No. 10, 1217–1224 (2000), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00061-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. T. B. Moeslund and E. Granum, “A survey of computer vision based human motion capture,” Comp. Vis. Image Understand., 81, 231–268 (2001), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/cviu.2000.0897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. K. N. Arya, S. Pandian, R. Verma, and R. K. Garg, “Movement therapy induced neural reorganization and motor recovery in stroke: a review,” J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther., 15, No. 4, 528–537 (2011), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.01.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R. J. Nudo, “Neural bases of recovery after brain injury. Mechanisms and principles,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., 7, 887 (2013), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00887.

  22. A. Pollock, G. Baer, P. Campbell, et al., “Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke,” Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 4, CD001920 (2014), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3.

  23. “Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association,” Stroke, 47, No. 6, 98–169 (2016), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000098.

  24. J. Wissel, A. Manack, and M. Brainin, “Toward an epidemiology of poststroke spasticity,” Neurology, 80, No. 3, 2, 13–19 (2013), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182762448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. A. Shumway-Cook, S. Brauer, and M. Woollacott, “Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go Test,” Phys. Ther., 80, No. 9, 896–903 (2000), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/80.9.896.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. M. A. Piradov, L. A. Chernikova, and N. A. Suponeva, “Brain plasticity and current neurorehabilitation techniques,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 88, No. 4, 299–312 (2018), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7868/S0869587318040023.

  27. D. V. Skvortsov, M. A. Bulatova, E. A. Kovrazhkina, et al., “Complex studies of movement biomechanics,” Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiat., 112, No. 6, 45–49 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. J. Lee, A. Lee, H. Kim, et al., “Differences in motor network dynamics during recovery between supra- and infra-tentorial ischemic strokes,” Hum. Brain Mapp., (2018), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Russian Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia

    I. A. Belayeva, M. Yu. Martynov, Ya. G. Pehova, A. A. Vershinin & E. I. Gusev

  2. National Medical Research Center for Rehabilitation and Balneology, Russian Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia

    Ya. G. Pehova, A. A. Vershinin, A. P. Rachin & M. A. Eremushkin

Authors
  1. I. A. Belayeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Yu. Martynov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ya. G. Pehova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. A. Vershinin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. P. Rachin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. A. Eremushkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. I. Gusev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. A. Belayeva.

Additional information

Translated from Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii imeni S. S. Korsakova, Vol. 119, No. 3, Iss. 2, Stroke, pp. 53–61, March, 2019.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belayeva, I.A., Martynov, M.Y., Pehova, Y.G. et al. Relationship between Movement Stereotype and Focus Location in the Early Recovery Period after Mild Ischemic Stroke. Neurosci Behav Physi 50, 149–155 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-019-00881-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-019-00881-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation