Fatma KIZILAY, Yuksel ERSOY, Seyma TOY, Betul AKYOL

Comparison of motor functions according to stroke type in hemiplegic patients with a specific level of disability

Aim: Stroke is basically classified as hemorrhagic and ischemic etiologically. Stroke type can be a factor influencing recovery and evidence is insufficient on this issue. Therefore, the purpose of study is to compare motor and functional recovery in terms of stroke type.Material and Methods: 20 patients with stroke between 30 and 65 years of age participated in the study voluntarily. The volunteers were grouped according to the stroke type as ischemic (n=10) or hemorrhagic (n=10). Disability levels of patients determined using Functional Independence Measure (FIM). The patients were compared with isokinetic knee strength, static-dynamic balance test, and 6-minutes walking test according to stroke type.Results: According to isokinetic strength test results, no statistically significant difference was found between groups in the parameters of hemiplegic side knee extension peak torque, knee flexion peak torque, values obtained in the flexion and extension phases of the average power, total work in the flexion phase and extension phase of the movement and hamstring/quadriceps (H/Q) muscle groups strength ratio (p>0.05). According to the data of balance test and 6-minute walk test, no statistically significant difference was found between groups in the parameters of balance indexes and test completion time and 6 minute-long walk distance (p>0.05).Conclusion: It was concluded that a stroke’s being ischemic or hemorrhagic did not create a difference in the recovery of motor function such as strength, balance, and walking. The fact that there are contradictory results and that there is no consensus shows that more studies are required in literature.

PDF

___

1. World Health Organization, Statistical Annex, in The World Health Report, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
2. Kumral E. Stroke Epidemiyology. In: Balkan S. Edition. Cerebrovasculary Diseases. Ankara: Güneş Kitabevi; 2005. p. 39-56.
3. Vuagnat H, Chantraine A. Shoulder Pain In Hemiplegia Revisited: Contribution Of Functional Electrical Stimulation And Other Therapies. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:49-56.
4. Dua T, Janca A, Muscetta A. Stroke. In: Aarli JA, Avanzini G, Bertolote JM. Edition. Neurological disorders Public Health Challenges. WHO; 2006. p. 151-63.
5. Sacco RL, Shi T, Zamanillo MC, et al. Predictors of mortality and recurrence after hospitalized cerebral infarction in an urban community: The Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Neurology 1994;44:626-34.
6. Stein J, Brandstater ME. Stroke Rehabilitation. In: Frontera WR, DeLisa JA. Edition. DeLisa’s Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation: Principles and Practice. 5. Baskı, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins/Wolter Kluwer; 2012. p. 551-74.
7. Iosa M, Morone G, Fusco A, et al. Effects of walking endurance reduction on walking stability in patients with stroke. Stroke Res Treat 2012;10:1155-2012.
8. Pohl PS, Duncan PW, Perera S, et al. Influence of stroke-related impairments on performance in 6-minute walk test. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002;39:439-44.
9. Çevikol A, Çakcı A. Stroke Rehabilitaion. In: Oğuz H (Editor). Medical Rehabilitation. 3. Edition, İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitapevleri; 2015. p. 419-48.
10. Harvey RL, Roth EJ, Yu DT, Celnik P: Stroke Syndromes. In: Braddom R. Edition. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 4. Baskı, Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2011. p. 1117-222.
11. Hsu AL, Tang PF, Jan MH. Test-retest reliability of isokinetic muscle strength of the lower extremities in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1130-7.
12. Stark T, Walker B, Phillips JK, et al. Hand-held dynamometry correlation with the gold standard isokinetic dynamometry: A systematic review. PM R 2011;3:472-9.
13. Yavuzer G. Scales used in medical rehabilitation. In: Beyazova M, Gökçe-Kutsal Y. Edition. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Güneş Tıp Kitapevleri; 2011. p. 3583-91.
14. Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, et al. Adaptation of the functional independence measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:311-9.
15. Murphy TH, Corbett D. Plasticity during stroke recovery: From synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009;10:861-72.
16. Laver K, George S, Thomas S, et al. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2015;12:8349.
17. Wityk RJ, Pessin MS, Kaplan RF, et al. Serial assessment of acute stroke using the NIH Stroke Scale. Stroke 1994;25:362-5.
18. de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Van der Meulen JH, et al. Quality of life after stroke. Impact of stroke type and lesion location. Stroke 1995;26:402-8.
19. Lefkovits J, Davis SM, Rossiter SC, et al. Acute stroke outcome: Effects of stroke type and risk factors. Aust N Z J Med 1992;22:30-5.
20. Baumgartner RN, Cameron C, Roche AF. Bioelectrical impedance for body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 1998;48:16-23.
21. WHO Expert Committee. Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Epidemiology 1995;18:46-55.
22. Biodex Application Manual. New York: Shirley, 1986.
23. Şahin Ö. Isokinetic assessment in rehabilitation. Cumhuriyet Med J 2010;32:386-96.
24. Kerkez FI, Kızılay F, Arslan C. Relationship between body mass index and postural dynamic balance among 35-45 aged women. Sport Sciences 2013;8:57-64.
25. Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, et al. Intracerebral hemorrhage versus infarction: stroke severity, risk factors, and prognosis. Ann Neurol: Official J Am Neurol Associat Child Neurol Society 1995;38:45-50.