Daly Janis J, Ruff Robert L
DVA FES Center of Excellence, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, USA.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2007 Dec 20;7:2031-45. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2007.299.
For neurorehabilitation to advance from art to science, it must become evidence-based. Historically, there has been a dearth of evidence from which to construct rehabilitation interventions that are properly framed, accurately targeted, and credibly measured. In many instances, evidence of treatment response has not been sufficiently robust to demonstrate a change in function that is clinically, statistically, and economically important. Research evidence of activity-dependent central nervous system (CNS) plasticity and the requisite motor learning principles can be used to construct an efficacious motor recovery intervention. Brain plasticity after stroke refers to the regeneration of brain neuronal structures and/or reorganization of the function of neurons. Not only can CNS structure and function change in response to injury, but also, the changes may be modified by "activity". For gait training or upper limb functional training for stroke survivors, the "activity" is motor behavior, including coordination and strengthening exercise and functional training that comprise motor learning. Critical principles of motor learning required for CNS activity-dependent plasticity include: close-to-normal movements, muscle activation driving practice of movement; focused attention, repetition of desired movements, and training specificity. The ultimate goal of rehabilitation is to restore function so that a satisfying quality of life can be experienced. Accurate measurement of dysfunction and its underlying impairments are critical to the development of accurately targeted interventions that are sufficiently robust to produce gains, not only in function, but also in quality of life. The Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Model (ICF) model of disablement, put forth by the World Health Organization, can provide not only some guidance in measurement level selection, but also can serve as a guide to incorporate function and quality of life enhancement as the ultimate goals of rehabilitation interventions. Based on the evidence and principles of activity-dependent plasticity and motor learning, we developed gait training and upper limb functional training protocols. Guided by the ICF model, we selected and developed measures with characteristics rendering them most likely to capture change in the targeted aspects of intervention, as well as measures having membership not only in the impairment, but also in the functional or life role participation levels contained in the ICF model. We measured response to innovative gait training using a knee flexion coordination measure, coefficient of coordination consistency (ACC) of relative hip/knee (H/K) movement across multiple steps (H/K ACC), and milestones of participation in life role activities. We measured response to upper limb functional training according to measures designed to quantify functional gains in response to treatment targeted at wrist/hand or shoulder elbow training (Arm Motor Ability Test for wrist/hand (AMAT W/H) or shoulder/elbow (AMAT S/E)). We found that there was a statistically significant advantage for adding FES-IM gait training to an otherwise comparable and comprehensive gait training, according to the following measures: H/K ACC, the measure of consistently executed hip/knee coordination during walking; a specific measure of isolated joint knee flexion coordination; and a measure of multiple coordinated gait components. Further, enhanced gains in gait component coordination were robust enough to result in achievement of milestones in participation in life role activities. In the upper limb functional training study, we found that robotics + motor learning (ROB ML; shoulder/elbow robotics practice plus motor learning) produced a statistically significant gain in AMAT S/E; whereas functional electrical stimulation + motor learning (FES ML) did not. We found that FES ML (wrist/hand FES plus motor learning) produced a statistically significant gain in AMAT W/H; whereas ROB ML did not. These results together, support the phenomenon of training specificity in that the most practiced joint movements improved in comparison to joint movements that were practiced at a lesser intensity and frequency. Both ROB ML and FES ML protocols addressed an array of impairments thought to underlie dysfunction. If we are willing to adhere to the ICF model, we accept the challenge that the goal of rehabilitation is life role participation, with functional improvement as in important intermediary step. The ICF model suggests that we intervene at multiple lower levels (e.g., pathology and impairment) in order to improve the higher levels of function and life role participation. The ICF model also suggests that we measure at each level. Not only can we then understand response to treatment at each level, but also, we can begin to understand relationships between levels (e.g., impairment and function). With the ICF model proffering the challenge of restoring life role participation, it then becomes important to design and test interventions that result in impairment gains sufficiently robust to be reflected in functional activities and further, in life role participation. Fortunately, CNS plasticity and associated motor learning principles can serve well as the basis for generating such interventions. These principles were useful in generating both efficacious gait training and efficacious upper limb functional training interventions. These principles led to the use of therapeutic agents (FES and robotics) so that close-to-normal movements could be practiced. These principles supported the use of specific therapeutic agents (BWSTT, FES, and robotics) so that sufficient movement repetition could be provided. These principles also supported incorporation of functional task practice and the demand of attention to task practice within the intervention. The ICF model provided the challenge to restore function and life role participation. The means to that end was provided by principles of CNS plasticity and motor learning.
为使神经康复从一门技艺发展成为一门科学,它必须以证据为基础。从历史上看,一直缺乏证据来构建框架合理、目标精准且测量可靠的康复干预措施。在许多情况下,治疗反应的证据不够有力,无法证明在临床、统计和经济方面具有重要意义的功能变化。依赖活动的中枢神经系统(CNS)可塑性的研究证据以及必要的运动学习原则可用于构建有效的运动恢复干预措施。中风后的脑可塑性是指脑神经元结构的再生和/或神经元功能的重组。中枢神经系统的结构和功能不仅会因损伤而发生变化,而且这些变化可能会被“活动”所改变。对于中风幸存者的步态训练或上肢功能训练,“活动”就是运动行为,包括协调和强化练习以及包含运动学习的功能训练。中枢神经系统依赖活动的可塑性所需的运动学习关键原则包括:接近正常的运动、肌肉激活驱动运动练习;集中注意力、重复期望的运动以及训练特异性。康复的最终目标是恢复功能,以便能够体验到令人满意的生活质量。准确测量功能障碍及其潜在损伤对于制定精准靶向干预措施至关重要,这些干预措施要足够有力,不仅能在功能上取得进展,还能在生活质量上有所提升。世界卫生组织提出的功能、残疾和健康分类模型(ICF)不仅可以在测量水平选择上提供一些指导,还可以作为将功能和生活质量提升纳入康复干预最终目标的指南。基于依赖活动的可塑性和运动学习的证据及原则,我们制定了步态训练和上肢功能训练方案。在ICF模型的指导下,我们选择并开发了一些测量方法,这些方法具有最有可能捕捉干预目标方面变化的特征,并且不仅属于ICF模型中的损伤水平,还属于功能或生活角色参与水平。我们使用膝关节屈曲协调测量、多步相对髋/膝(H/K)运动的协调一致性系数(ACC)以及生活角色活动参与的里程碑来测量对创新步态训练的反应。我们根据旨在量化针对腕/手或肩肘训练的治疗所产生的功能改善的测量方法(腕/手的手臂运动能力测试(AMAT W/H)或肩/肘的(AMAT S/E))来测量对上肢功能训练的反应。我们发现,根据以下测量方法,在其他方面可比且全面的步态训练中加入功能性电刺激 - 交互式迈步训练(FES - IM)步态训练具有统计学上的显著优势:H/K ACC,即行走过程中持续执行的髋/膝协调测量;孤立关节膝关节屈曲协调的特定测量;以及多个协调步态成分的测量。此外,步态成分协调的增强收益足够显著,足以实现生活角色活动参与的里程碑。在上肢功能训练研究中,我们发现机器人技术 + 运动学习(ROB ML;肩/肘机器人技术练习加运动学习)在AMAT S/E上产生了统计学上的显著收益;而功能性电刺激 + 运动学习(FES ML)则没有。我们发现FES ML(腕/手功能性电刺激加运动学习)在AMAT W/H上产生了统计学上的显著收益;而ROB ML则没有。这些结果共同支持了训练特异性现象,即与练习强度和频率较低的关节运动相比,练习最多的关节运动得到了改善。ROB ML和FES ML方案都解决了一系列被认为是功能障碍基础的损伤问题。如果我们愿意遵循ICF模型,我们就接受了康复目标是生活角色参与这一挑战,功能改善是重要的中间步骤。ICF模型表明,我们在多个较低水平(例如,病理和损伤)进行干预,以改善较高水平的功能和生活角色参与。ICF模型还表明我们在每个水平进行测量。这样我们不仅可以了解每个水平对治疗的反应,还可以开始理解各水平之间的关系(例如,损伤和功能)。随着ICF模型提出恢复生活角色参与的挑战,设计和测试能够在损伤方面取得足够显著进展从而反映在功能活动中,并进而反映在生活角色参与中的干预措施就变得很重要。幸运的是,中枢神经系统可塑性和相关的运动学习原则可以很好地作为生成此类干预措施的基础。这些原则在生成有效的步态训练和有效的上肢功能训练干预措施方面很有用。这些原则导致使用治疗手段(功能性电刺激和机器人技术),以便能够练习接近正常的运动。这些原则支持使用特定的治疗手段(减重步行训练、功能性电刺激和机器人技术),以便能够提供足够的运动重复。这些原则还支持在干预中纳入功能性任务练习以及对任务练习的注意力要求。ICF模型提出了恢复功能和生活角色参与的挑战。实现这一目标的手段由中枢神经系统可塑性和运动学习原则提供。