Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, 1209Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Biomedical Signals & Systems, Technical Medical Centre, 214825University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2022 Mar;36(3):183-207. doi: 10.1177/15459683211062890. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
Disambiguation of behavioral restitution from compensation is important to better understand recovery of upper limb motor control post-stroke and subsequently design better interventions. Measuring quality of movement (QoM) during standardized performance assays and functional tasks using kinematic and kinetic metrics potentially allows for this disambiguation.
To identify longitudinal studies that used kinematic and/or kinetic metrics to investigate post-stroke recovery of reaching and assess whether these studies distinguish behavioral restitution from compensation.
A systematic literature search was conducted using the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Wiley/Cochrane Library up to July 1st, 2020. Studies were identified if they performed longitudinal kinematic and/or kinetic measurements during reaching, starting within the first 6 months post-stroke.
Thirty-two longitudinal studies were identified, which reported a total of forty-six different kinematic metrics. Although the majority investigated improvements in kinetics or kinematics to quantify recovery of QoM, none of these studies explicitly addressed the distinction between behavioral restitution and compensation. One study obtained kinematic metrics for both performance assays and a functional task.
Despite the growing number of kinematic and kinetic studies on post-stroke recovery, longitudinal studies that explicitly seek to delineate between behavioral restitution and compensation are still lacking in the literature. To rectify this situation, future studies should measure kinematics and/or kinetics during performance assays to isolate restitution and during a standardized functional task to determine the contributions of restitution and compensation.
区分行为代偿和补偿对于更好地理解脑卒中后上肢运动控制的恢复非常重要，继而也有助于设计更好的干预措施。使用运动学和动力学指标在标准化的运动表现测试和功能任务中测量运动质量（QoM），有可能实现这种区分。
确定使用运动学和/或动力学指标来研究脑卒中后上肢运动恢复的纵向研究，并评估这些研究是否能区分行为代偿和补偿。
系统地检索了 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Wiley/Cochrane Library 数据库，检索时间截至 2020 年 7 月 1 日。如果研究在脑卒中后 6 个月内进行了纵向运动学和/或动力学测量，并进行了上肢运动的研究，则将其确定为符合条件的研究。
确定了 32 项纵向研究，共报道了 46 种不同的运动学指标。尽管大多数研究都是通过研究动力学或运动学来量化运动质量恢复，以评估补偿，但没有一项研究明确解决了行为代偿和补偿之间的区别。有一项研究同时获得了两种性能测试和一种功能任务的运动学指标。
尽管越来越多的关于脑卒中后恢复的运动学和动力学研究，但文献中仍缺乏明确区分行为代偿和补偿的纵向研究。为了纠正这种情况，未来的研究应该在性能测试中测量运动学和/或动力学，以分离代偿；并在标准化的功能任务中测量，以确定代偿和补偿的贡献。
