Post-Stroke Impairments of Manual Dexterity and Finger Proprioception: Their Contribution to Upper Limb Activity Capacity
Coralie van Ravestyn,Eloïse Gerardin,Maxime Térémetz,Sonia Hamdoun,Jean-Claude Baron,David Calvet,Yves Vandermeeren,Guillaume Turc,Marc A. Maier,Charlotte Rosso,Jean-Louis Mas,Lucile Dupin,Påvel G. Lindberg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241245416
2024-04-06
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
Abstract:Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Ahead of Print. BackgroundKnowing how impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception affect upper limb activity capacity is important for delineating targeted post-stroke interventions for upper limb recovery.ObjectivesTo investigate whether impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain variance in post-stroke activity capacity, and whether they explain more variance than conventional clinical assessments of upper limb sensorimotor impairments.MethodsActivity capacity and hand sensorimotor impairments were assessed using clinical measures in N = 42 late subacute/chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Dexterity was evaluated using the Dextrain Manipulandum to quantify accuracy of visuomotor finger force-tracking (N = 36), timing of rhythmic tapping (N = 36), and finger individuation (N = 24), as well as proprioception (N = 27). Stepwise multivariate and hierarchical linear regression models were used to identify impairments best explaining activity capacity.ResultsDexterity and proprioceptive components significantly increased the variance explained in activity capacity: (i) Box and Block Test was best explained by baseline tonic force during force-tracking and tapping frequency (adjusted R2 = .51); (ii) Motor Activity Log was best explained by success rate in finger individuation (adjusted R2 = .46); (iii) Action Research Arm Test was best explained by release of finger force and proprioceptive measures (improved reaction time related to use of proprioception; adjusted R2 = .52); and (iv) Moberg Pick-Up test was best explained by proprioceptive function (adjusted R2 = .18). Models excluding dexterity and proprioception variables explained up to 19% less variance.ConclusionsManual dexterity and finger proprioception explain unique variance in activity capacity not captured by conventional impairment measures and should be assessed when considering the underlying causes of post-stroke activity capacity limitations.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03934073.
clinical neurology,rehabilitation