Buma Floor E, Raemaekers Mathijs, Kwakkel Gert, Ramsey Nick F
Centre of Knowledge, Rehabilitation Centre 'De Hoogstraat', Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dept. Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dept of Neurology & Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, UMCU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 6;10(10):e0139746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139746. eCollection 2015.
The nature of changes in brain activation related to good recovery of arm function after stroke is still unclear. While the notion that this is a reflection of neuronal plasticity has gained much support, confounding by compensatory strategies cannot be ruled out. We address this issue by comparing brain activity in recovered patients 6 months after stroke with healthy controls.
We included 20 patients with upper limb paresis due to ischemic stroke and 15 controls. We measured brain activation during a finger flexion-extension task with functional MRI, and the relationship between brain activation and hand function. Patients exhibited various levels of recovery, but all were able to perform the task.
Comparison between patients and controls with voxel-wise whole-brain analysis failed to reveal significant differences in brain activation. Equally, a region of interest analysis constrained to the motor network to optimize statistical power, failed to yield any differences. Finally, no significant relationship between brain activation and hand function was found in patients. Patients and controls performed scanner task equally well.
Brain activation and behavioral performance during finger flexion-extensions in (moderately) well recovered patients seems normal. The absence of significant differences in brain activity even in patients with a residual impairment may suggest that infarcts do not necessarily induce reorganization of motor function. While brain activity could be abnormal with higher task demands, this may also introduce performance confounds. It is thus still uncertain to what extent capacity for true neuronal repair after stroke exists.
中风后手臂功能良好恢复所涉及的大脑激活变化的本质仍不清楚。虽然认为这是神经元可塑性的一种体现这一观点已获得诸多支持,但不能排除补偿策略造成的混淆影响。我们通过比较中风后6个月恢复良好的患者与健康对照者的大脑活动来解决这一问题。
我们纳入了20名因缺血性中风导致上肢轻瘫的患者和15名对照者。我们使用功能磁共振成像测量了手指屈伸任务期间的大脑激活情况,以及大脑激活与手部功能之间的关系。患者呈现出不同程度的恢复,但均能够完成该任务。
通过体素全脑分析对患者和对照者进行比较,未发现大脑激活存在显著差异。同样,将感兴趣区域分析限定在运动网络以优化统计功效,也未得出任何差异。最后,在患者中未发现大脑激活与手部功能之间存在显著关系。患者和对照者在扫描任务中的表现同样良好。
(中度)恢复良好的患者在手指屈伸过程中的大脑激活和行为表现似乎正常。即使是有残余功能障碍的患者,大脑活动也没有显著差异,这可能表明梗死灶不一定会诱发运动功能的重组。虽然在更高任务要求下大脑活动可能异常,但这也可能引入表现上的混淆因素。因此,中风后真正的神经元修复能力究竟在多大程度上存在仍不确定。