Aprile I, Iacovelli C, Pecchioli C, Cruciani A, Castelli L, Germanotta M
IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Florence, Italy.
IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Department of Neuroscience, Rome, Italy.
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5 Suppl. 3):1-9. Technology in Medicine.
Focal muscular vibration (FMV) is a non-invasive technique that showed positive effects on spasticity of the upper limb in stroke subjects but different protocols have been proposed so the studies are not comparable and, to date, it is not clear which muscles should be treated, agonist, or antagonist muscles to obtain the better result on spasticity. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects on spasticity of FMV on the upper limb flexor spastic muscles compared to the effects of FMV on the upper limb extensor muscles in subacute stroke patients. We treated 28 subacute stroke patients (mean age 64.28±13.79) randomized into two groups: Group A and Group B. Group A was treated by applying FMV to the flexor muscles of the upper limb, while Group B was treated by applying FMV to the extensor muscles of the upper limb. The effects on spasticity were assessed by Modified Ashworth Scale (primary outcome) and the upper limb motor function by instrumental robotic outcomes; moreover, muscle strength and pain were evaluated using Motricity Index and Numerical Rating Scale, respectively (secondary outcomes). Patients were subjected to FMV for three consecutive days and were evaluated three times: before treatment (T0), after a week (T1) and after a month (T2) from the end of treatment. Within group, analysis showed statistically significant changes over time of the MAS at the three joints (shoulder, elbow and wrist) in both groups, but post-hoc analysis showed that, only in Group A, MAS was significantly lower at T2, when compared with T0 at the shoulder and elbow. NRS, significantly changed over time only in the Group B. Motricity Index, did not change over time neither in the Group A, nor in the Group B. No statistically significant differences were detected in the between group analysis. Regarding the instrumental robotic outcomes, we detected a statistically significant reduction of the time required to complete the task (Duration) in both group a T2. In conclusion, this study highlighted how the same treatment protocol can determine an improvement in muscle tone and in the Duration to perform a task, regardless of the muscles treated, while the pain improves if we treat the agonist muscles.
局部肌肉振动(FMV)是一种非侵入性技术,已显示对中风患者上肢痉挛有积极作用,但已提出不同方案,因此各研究缺乏可比性,且迄今为止,尚不清楚应治疗哪些肌肉,即主动肌还是拮抗肌,才能在痉挛方面取得更好效果。本研究的目的是评估与FMV作用于亚急性中风患者上肢伸肌相比,FMV作用于上肢屈肌痉挛肌肉对痉挛的影响。我们将28例亚急性中风患者(平均年龄64.28±13.79)随机分为两组:A组和B组。A组通过对上肢屈肌施加FMV进行治疗,而B组通过对上肢伸肌施加FMV进行治疗。通过改良Ashworth量表(主要结局)评估对痉挛的影响,通过仪器机器人评估结果评估上肢运动功能;此外,分别使用运动功能指数和数字评分量表评估肌肉力量和疼痛(次要结局)。患者连续三天接受FMV治疗,并进行三次评估:治疗前(T0)、治疗结束后一周(T1)和治疗结束后一个月(T2)。组内分析显示,两组在三个关节(肩部、肘部和腕部)的MAS随时间均有统计学显著变化,但事后分析表明,仅在A组中,T2时肩部和肘部的MAS与T0相比显著降低。NRS仅在B组中随时间有显著变化。运动功能指数在A组和B组中均未随时间变化。组间分析未检测到统计学显著差异。关于仪器机器人评估结果,我们在两组的T2时均检测到完成任务所需时间(持续时间)有统计学显著减少。总之,本研究强调了相同的治疗方案如何能够改善肌张力和执行任务的持续时间,而不论治疗的是哪些肌肉,同时,如果治疗主动肌,疼痛会有所改善。