4.6 Article

Validation of a New Biomechanical Model to Measure Muscle Tone in Spastic Muscles

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 617-625

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968311403494

Keywords

spasticity; stroke; hand; biomechanical model; stretch reflex

Funding

  1. Health Care Sciences Postgraduate School
  2. Swedish Research Council [5925]
  3. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  4. VINNOVA
  5. Swedish Brain Foundation
  6. Karolinska Institutet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. There is no easy and reliable method to measure spasticity, although it is a common and important symptom after a brain injury. Objective. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a new method to measure spasticity that can be easily used in clinical practice. Methods. A biomechanical model was created to estimate the components of the force resisting passive hand extension, namely (a) inertia (IC), (b) elasticity (EC), (c) viscosity (VC), and (d) neural components (NC). The model was validated in chronic stroke patients with varying degree of hand spasticity. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded to measure the muscle activity induced by the passive stretch. Results. The model was validated in 3 ways: (a) NC was reduced after an ischemic nerve block, (b) NC correlated with the integrated EMG across subjects and in the same subject during the ischemic nerve block, and (c) NC was velocity dependent. In addition, the total resisting force and NC correlated with the modified Ashworth score. According to the model, the neural and nonneural components varied between patients. In most of the patients, but not in all, the NC dominated. Conclusions. The results suggest that the model allows valid measurement of spasticity in the upper extremity of chronic stroke patients and that it can be used to separate the neural component induced by the stretch reflex from resistance caused by altered muscle properties.

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