4.6 Article

Reciprocal inhibition post-stroke is related to reflex excitability and movement ability

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 123, Issue 11, Pages 2239-2246

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.04.023

Keywords

Spasticity; Rehabilitation; Hemiparesis; CVA

Funding

  1. American Heart Association (Midwest) [0630412Z]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSI) program of the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health [1UL1RR031973]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Decreased reciprocal inhibition (RI) of motor neurons may contribute to spasticity after stroke. However, decreased RI is not a uniform observation among stroke survivors, suggesting that this spinal circuit may be influenced by other stroke-related characteristics. The purpose of this study was to measure RI post-stroke and to examine the relationship between RI and other features of stroke. Methods: RI was examined in 15 stroke survivors (PAR) and 10 control subjects by quantifying the effect of peroneal nerve stimulation on soleus H-reflex amplitude. The relationship between RI and age, time post-stroke, lesion side, walking velocity, Fugl-Meyer, Ashworth, and Achilles reflex scores was examined. Results: RI was absent and replaced by reciprocal facilitation in 10 of 15 PAR individuals. Reciprocal facilitation was associated with low Fugl-Meyer scores and slow walking velocities but not with hyperactive Achilles tendon reflexes. There was no relationship between RI or reciprocal facilitation and time post-stroke, lesion side, or Ashworth score. Conclusions: Decreased RI is not a uniform finding post-stroke and is more closely related to walking ability and movement impairment than to spasticity. Significance: Phenomena other than decreased RI may contribute to post-stroke spasticity. (C) 2012 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available