Therapeutic Role of Additional Mirror Therapy on the Recovery of Upper Extremity Motor Function after Stroke: A Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Wen, Xin; Li, Li; Li, Xuelian; Zha, Huanghong; Liu, Zicai; Peng, Yang; Liu, Xuejin; Liu, Huiyu; Yang, Quan; Wang, Jing

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8966920

Neural Plasticity

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 8966920 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8966920

Therapeutic Role of Additional Mirror Therapy on the Recovery of Upper Extremity Motor Function after Stroke: A Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Xin Wen,^1,2Li Li,³Xuelian Li,⁴Huanghong Zha,¹Zicai Liu,²Yang Peng,¹Xuejin Liu,²Huiyu Liu,¹Quan Yang,¹and Jing Wang¹

Academic Editor: Sergio Bagnato

Received30 Aug 2022

Revised09 Dec 2022

Accepted19 Dec 2022

Published31 Dec 2022

Abstract

Background. Rehabilitation of upper extremity hemiplegia after stroke remains a great clinical challenge, with only 20% of patients achieving a basic return to normal hand function. How to promote the recovery of motor function at an early stage is crucial to the life of the patient. Objectives. To invest the effects of additional mirror therapy in improving upper limb motor function and activities of daily living in acute and subacute stroke patients, and further explore the effects of other factors on the efficacy of MT. Methods. Participants who presented with unilateral upper extremity paralysis due to a first ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke were included in the study. They were randomly allocated to the experimental or control group. Patients in the control group received occupational therapy for 30 minutes each session, six times a week, for three weeks, while patients in the experimental group received 30 minutes of additional mirror therapy based on occupational therapy. The primary outcome measures were Fugl-Meyer Assessment—upper extremity (FMA-UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) which were evaluated by two independent occupational therapists before treatment and after 3-week treatment. A paired -test was used to compare the values between pretreatment and posttreatment within an individual group. Two-sample -test was utilized to compare the changes (baseline to postintervention) between the two groups. Results. A total of 52 stroke patients with unilateral upper extremity motor dysfunction who were able to actively cooperate with the training were included in this study. At baseline, no significant differences were found between groups regarding demographic and clinical characteristics ( for all). Upper limb motor function and ability to perform activities of daily living of the patients were statistically improved in both groups towards the third week (). In addition, statistical analyses showed more significant improvements in the score changes of FMA-UE and IADL in the experimental group compared to the control group after treatment (), but no significant difference was observed in the ARAT score changes between the two groups (). The subgroup analysis showed that no significant heterogeneity was observed in age, stroke type, lesion side, and clinical stage (). Conclusion. In conclusion, some positive changes in aspects of upper limb motor function and the ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living compared with routine occupational therapy were observed in additional mirror therapy. Therefore, the application of additional mirror therapy training should be reconsidered to improve upper extremity motor in stroke patients.

1. Introduction

Almost 80% of acute stroke patients have upper extremity motor dysfunction [1]. Upper extremity paralysis is likely to largely improve within 6 months [2], however, up to 50-60% of stroke survivors remain persistent with upper extremity motor dysfunction at 6 months [3]. Persistent upper extremity dysfunction affects many poststroke patients and is strongly associated with decreased activities of daily living and poor quality of life [4, 5]. Therefore, early exercise interventions are necessary to improve the patients’ upper limb motor function and improve their activity of daily living.

Despite some trials have reported that treatments such as robot-assisted training [6] and constraint-induced movement therapy [7], functional electrical stimulation [8], and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [9] can facilitate upper limb motor function recovery, some of these interventions require expensive equipment or active interaction with a therapist and difficult to apply to home rehabilitation on a large scale. Moreover, most of the rehabilitation measures are limited to the hospital, and many of them are not available when the patient is discharged. In many cases, the motor function regained in treatment deteriorates over time when the rehabilitation therapy is discontinued [10]. Thus, consistent and effective treatment that can be easily performed at home is essential for the patient’s functional recovery.

Mirror therapy (MT) is suggested as an accessible and low-cost alternative intervention to improve the motor function of patients [11, 12]. Altschuler et al. [13] proposed MT for the rehabilitation of poststroke hemiplegia, and they observed an improvement in motor performance in patients with chronic stroke, and a new chapter of research on MT for the treatment of upper extremity movement disorders after stroke was opened. Several mechanisms for the effects of MT on motor function recovery after stroke have been proposed. A mirror was used to present the subject with a mirror reflection of the normal movements of the unaffected arm as if it was affected. The continuous mirror visual feedback stimulated the main motor cortex of the brain, thus affecting the electrical activity and excitability of the cortex [14, 15, 16], promoting the remodeling of brain function and facilitating the recovery of motor function. The therapeutic effect of MT is also attributed to the activation of the mirror neurons system (MNS). The MNS is located mainly in the occipital, temporal, and parietal visual-related areas and in the frontoparietal motor areas on both sides, connecting sensory neurons for visual processing and motor neurons for action signaling [17]. Nojima et al. [14] confirmed by transcranial magnetic stimulation that the improvement of motor function after MT training was more associated with the remodeling of the major motor cortical areas. In MT training, constant visual and somatosensory stimulation could activate the MNS, induce neural remodeling [18, 19], and cause upper motor function recovery. In addition, in MT, patients performed bilateral upper limb motor training independently or with assistance, and motor cortical areas were extensively activated when bilateral limbs performed symmetrical movements [20, 21], and it can be assumed that mirror visual feedback could ease some of the motor pathways on the affected side and promote the recovery of limb motor function.

Several previous studies [22, 23, 24, 25] have shown beneficial effects in improving the upper limb motor function in the acute to chronic phase of stroke. Gurbuz et al. [26] investigated the effects of MT combined with routine rehabilitation training on upper limb motor and functional recovery in patients after stroke, and they found that MT provided additional benefits in motor recovery of the upper limb in patients. However, the sample size of this study was small, with only 31 patients. A study by Lim et al. [27] indicated that MT containing functional tasks played a significant role in improving the upper limb functions and the ability to perform activities of daily living among patients with subacute stroke. A meta-analysis has suggested that MT could improve the upper limb motor function in subacute and chronic stroke patients, but with no significant difference in the improvements between subacute and chronic patients [28]. However, this meta-analysis only provided an indirect comparison of the effects of treatment in subacute and chronic stroke patients, and its accuracy needs to be further verified. It has been suggested that MT training has a variable effect on ADL in patients with left- and right-sided hemiplegia, with a significant increase in motor function in subacute stroke patients, with right-sided upper limb paralysis and no significant improvement in patients with left-sided upper limb paralysis [29].

Based on the above background, the purpose of this observer-blind, randomized controlled trial was to assess the beneficial impacts of MT on the recovery of upper limb motor function in acute and subacute stroke patients and further conduct subgroup analysis to explore the effects of other factors on the efficacy of MT to address gaps in previous studies.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were identified and selected from acute and subacute stroke patients hospitalized in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yuebei People’s Hospital between August 2021 and May 2022. The inclusion criteria were the following: (1) first-ever unilateral ischemic or hemorrhage stroke, confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging; (2) date of stroke less than 6 months; (3) moderate to severe upper extremity motor dysfunction (FMA-UE [30] scores <40); (4) aged between 18 and 80 years with no serious cognitive impairment; (5) no severe vision or visuospatial neglect [31] (the best gaze and visual subtest in National Institutes of [32]); (6) right-handed; and (7) no depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) [33] scores <8) with good compliance. Exclusion criteria were (1) have other neurologic, neuromuscular, or orthopedic disease affecting upper motor function; (2) excessive spasticity of the elbow flexion muscles (Modified Ashworth Scale [34] > 3); (3) recurrence of stroke or epilepsy during the study period; (4) serious systemic impairment or concomitant diseases; and (5) patients refused to participate in the experiment. All participants were required to sign an informed consent form before participation in the study. The experiment was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Yuebei People’s Hospital (Approval number: KY-2021-097).

2.2. Sample Size Estimation

The sample size was estimated prospectively using PASS software version 22.0.2 (NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA). Based on a previous randomized controlled study [35], we expected an effect size of 0.49, with an α level of 0.05 and a power of 0.8; the minimum sample size was (20 per group). To allow for dropouts, we planned to recruit an additional 10 participants. Thus, the planned sample size was 50 (25 subjects per group).

2.3. Study Design

An assessor-blind, randomized controlled study was designed. Participants who met the criteria were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group. The allocation ratio was 1 : 1. A computer-generated completely randomized digital table was used to generate the random allocation sequence. Two certified occupational therapists were responsible for the clinical assessments but were blinded to the group assignment throughout the study. All participants received functional assessments before starting the treatment and after 3-week of treatment. This study protocol was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR2200055439). The experiment was implemented and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance [36].

2.4. Intervention

All included patients received routine stroke rehabilitation treatment for 3 weeks, 6 days a week, and half an hour per day. The routine treatment included neurodevelopmental facilitation techniques, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech and swallowing training (if necessary). Patients in the experimental group received an extra 30 minutes of MT per day based on the routine stroke rehabilitation treatment.

2.5. Mirror Therapy

In the first intervention, patients were introduced to the general procedures of MT. The MT procedures were as follows: patients were asked to sit in front of a table of appropriate height with their arms resting on the table and a mirror () placed between the patient’s arms. The nonaffected arm was placed in front of the mirror and the affected arm was placed and obscured behind the mirror (Figure 1). The patient was instructed by a therapist to complete the movement of the nonaffected arm while staring at the reflection of the uninvolved arm in the mirror as if it was the involved one. Simultaneously, subjects were required to conduct the same movements by the involved arm as actively as possible, if necessary; the therapist assisted the patients with the movements of the affected arm. The movements consisted of forearm rotation, elbow, wrist, and finger flexion and extension movements, and hand grasping. Selected appropriate movement tasks according to the function of the affected upper limb. All patients in the experimental group participated in MT for 30 minutes per day, six days per week, for 3 weeks.

2.6. Clinical Assessment

National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NHISS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) were used to assess at baseline. NIHSS was used to assess the degree of functional impairment caused by stroke, and HMAD was evaluated to assess depression in patients. Measurements of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment—Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) were evaluated at baseline and postintervention (after 3 weeks). The primary motor function measure was FMA-UE, and the secondary measures were ARA and IADL. These clinical assessments were recorded by two dependent occupational therapists.

The primary motor measure was the score changes of FMA-UE from baseline to postintervention. The Fugl-Meyer scale was developed to evaluate recovery after stroke in the shoulder, elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand [37, 38]. The FMA-UE included 33-item upper limb activities; each rated from 0 to 2, with 0 representing “cannot conduct,” 1 representing “conducts partially,” and 2 representing “conducts completely”. The total score of the FMA-UE subscale varies from 0 to 66, with higher scores presenting better function. The reliability for FMA-UE was high (), and the intraclass correlation coefficient for the upper extremity subsection was 0.97 [39].

The second motor outcome was ARAT [40]. ARAT was developed to assess the activity and participation of the upper limb in stroke patients. ARAT has high validity and reliability [40, 41]. The ARAT included 19 items subdivided into four subsets: grasp, grip, pinch, and gross motor [42]. Each item was scored from 0 (indicating no movements) to 3 (indicating performs completely). The maximum score of the ARAT was 57.

The other secondary outcome was IADL. IADL was utilized to evaluate the level of functional independence. This questionnaire consisted of 8 items: the capability of using the telephone, going shopping, preparing food, doing housework, washing personal clothes, using transportation, being responsible for taking medications, and addressing finance [43, 44, 45]. The maximum score of the IADL was 24. The higher scores represented greater independence.

2.7. Statistical Analyses

In this present trial, statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS software (SPSS 28.0, Chicago, IL, USA)), and suitable descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the general characteristics at baseline of the patients. The measurement data obtained in this study were presented as (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). The normality of the variables was assessed by using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Chi-square or two-sample -test or Mann–Whitney test was applied to check for any significant group differences in demographics and outcome variables between the two intervention groups before starting the intervention. A paired -test was used to compare the values between pretreatment and posttreatment within an individual group. Two-sample -test was utilized to compare the changes (baseline to postintervention) between the two groups. Every outcome was regarded as an independent domain, and we only observed the effect of MT on each domain independently. Subgroup analyses were conducted by dividing the sample into two groups based on their age (less or more than 60 years old), their stroke type (ischemic or hemorrhagic), their lesion side (right or left hemisphere), and clinical stage (less than 1month or more than 1 month), respectively. A post hoc age, stroke type, lesion side, and clinical stage subgroup analysis was conducted by two independent -test to investigate the effects of other factors on the efficacy of MT.

3. Results

Figure 2 shows the flow chart of the present trial and the exact number of participants. During the recruitment period, a total of sixty-five patients were screened from August 2021 to May 2022, 9 patients did not meet the study eligibility criteria and 4 patients refused to attend this study. In total, 52 participants were enrolled in our trial. All 52 patients completed the assessment and a 3-week treatment without any side effects, and no adverse events happened during the treatment period. 25 patients (aged years, 18 males and 7 females) received additional MT training based on occupational therapy (experimental group) and 27 patients (aged years, 23 males and 4 females) received occupational therapy (control group). None of the patients discontinued the experiment during the intervention.

The overall characteristics of the subjects were summarized in Table 1. There were no significant differences in the distribution of age, gender, lesion type, lesion side, duration after stroke onset, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and the scores of NHISS, and HMAD at baseline between the two groups () (see Table 1). For the upper limb motor function assessment at baseline, no significant differences in the scores of FMA-UE, ARAT, and IADL between the experimental and control groups were found () (see Table 1).

After the intervention, the experimental group presented significant improvements in the scores of FMA-UE, ARAT, and IADL ( for all) (see Table 2). The control group also presented significant improvements in the scores of FMA-UE, ARAT, and IADL ( for all) (see Table 2). In addition, statistical analyses showed more significant improvements in the score changes of FMA-UE and IADL in the experimental group compared to the control group after 3-week of treatment () (see Table 3). However, there was no significant difference in the score changes of ARAT between the two groups () (see Table 3). The subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference in age, stroke type, lesion side, and clinical stage (, 0.762, 0.206, and 0.377, respectively) (see Figure 3).

4. Discussion

This randomized controlled trial explored whether MT combined with conventional therapy affects upper extremity motor function and activities of daily living in stroke patients with upper extremity motor dysfunction in comparison to conventional therapy. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analyses to attempt to investigate the effects of other factors on the efficacy of MT. Both experimental and control groups had improvements in motor function, participation, and activities of daily living as FMA-UE, ARAT, and IADL scales. Noting that, the patients in the experimental group showed more significant improvements in the score changes of FMA-UE and IADL than the control group after treatment. However, there was no significant difference in the improvement in ARAT between patients in the experimental and control groups.

From the results of statistical analyses, we found that both MT and conventional occupational therapy were beneficial for the improvement of the upper extremity motor function after stroke. Consistent with previous studies [46, 47], our study observed more significant motor function improvement in acute and subacute stroke patients after additional MT training than after conventional occupational therapy. Michielsen et al. [11] found that MT has some effects on chronic stroke patients. A study by Colomer et al. [25] also declared that MT provided limited but positive effects on light touch sensitivity in chronic stroke survivors with severely impaired upper-limb function. Furthermore, we also found that after MT training, there was a significant improvement in activities of daily living compared to traditional occupational therapy. This result is in accordance with these previous studies [12, 48, 49] and in inconsistent with the study of Wu et al. [50]. The reason why our findings differed from Wu et al. may be due to the different duration after stroke onset in the included patients. In our study, we selected patients within 6 months after stroke onset, while Wu et al. selected stroke patients with onset of more than 6 months. This may suggest that MT could significantly improve the activities of daily living of patients within 6 months, while it is less effective in patients more than 6 months after stroke onset. In our study, we demonstrated that the application of MT training should be reconsidered to enhance motor performance and improve the activities of daily living in stroke patients with upper extremity motor dysfunction. The recovery of motor function depends largely on neuroplasticity changes [51], and conventional therapy can promote functional reorganization of the brain, which is an effective way to reduce the disability rate [52]. However, patients are inattentive and have low initiative when receiving conventional treatment, which is detrimental to the activation of the corresponding cerebral cortex, which in turn affects neuroplasticity and functional reorganization [53]. MT requires active movement of bilateral upper limbs, which can increase the patient’s initiative, and requires simultaneous observation of the mirror reflection of normal limb movement, which can make the patient’s attention more focused, and will be more conducive to cortical activation than conventional rehabilitation training. Therefore, both MT and conventional therapy can promote the recovery of motor function to some extent, and this combination of MT and conventional therapy can compensate for the shortcomings of conventional therapy and further improve the patient’s motor function.

It is well known that brain excitability with aging, which may affect the recovery of motor function. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people over 60 years of age are defined as elderly, thus we chose 60 years as the cutoff and divided the patients into two groups. No significant difference in the recovery of motor function between the two groups, and the results of this study were similar to those of Falconer et al. [54]. They indicated that the older (> 75 years) group’s motor index scored significantly lower than both the young (< 65 years) and young-old (65-74 years) groups, and no significant difference was observed between the young and young-old group. We also found patients with ischemic stroke seem to have better improvement in mean changes of FMA-UE scores than patients with hemorrhagic stroke. We observed that patients injured in the left hemisphere have better mean changes of FMA-UE scores than those in right, with a difference of 5.14 points. We believe that this result may be related to the dominant hemisphere of the brain. Patients in acute seemed to be better compared to patients in subacute. However, all of these differences were qualitative observations not supported by statistical analysis. Currently, it has been recognized that the best time for recovery of motor function was within 3 months after the stroke onset, and intervening as early as possible could promote functional recovery to a certain degree [55, 56].

In this present study, we chose patients with unilateral upper extremity paralysis within six months after stroke onset. It did not exclude the possibility of spontaneous recovery of the patient, because partly patients may recover spontaneously their motor function in weeks after stroke onset [57]. Both the experimental and control groups improved motor performance, in part attributed to the effects of spontaneous recovery and conventional occupational therapy [58]. However, the mean change values of scores in the experimental group were all significantly higher than those in the control group, with the experimental group being more effective compared to the control group. It suggested that MT could improve upper limb motor performance after stroke within six months. What is more, participants were not blinded, which may also have an impact on the treatment of MT. Patients in the experimental group underwent additional MT training while the control group did not receive placebo treatment, which may have exaggerated the effect of mirror treatment.

In our study, patients received 30 minutes of additional MT training per day, six times a week for a total of three weeks. At present, there is no complete consensus on the daily intervention time, frequency, modality, and specific efficacy of MT interventions. It has been shown that both daily interventions minutes [27, 59] and daily interventions >30 minutes [26, 35] could improve upper extremity motor function. However, no clinical trials have explored the impacts of different daily treatment times on recovery of motor function. Only a meta-analysis [60] indicated that a daily intervention time of minutes was more favorable for the functional recovery of patients.

However, our study has several limitations. Firstly, despite no statistical differences in demographic features and baseline assessments between the two groups, the experimental group was younger, with more hemorrhagic stroke, and had higher scores on ARAT than the control group. Differences in the study groups (although not significant) may lead to overestimating changes after MT training. Secondly, participants included in our study were not blinded, and the control group did not undergo placebo treatment, which did not exclude that this difference in treatment effect was due to the unequal duration of treatment. In a future study, the control group could be subjected to the same training procedure as the experimental group in the absence of a mirror. Besides, although the relatively large number of patients, this was a single-center study. We adopted clinical rating scales to assess the upper limb motor function based on clinical judgments, which may lead to a subjective evaluation. Furthermore, only patients with good compliance were included in our study, and the effect of MT on patients with poor adherence was unknown. In future studies, the potential effect of compliance as an important factor in the therapeutic effect of MT could be explored. Finally, we performed the 3-week treatment without follow-up, and the long-term and sustained therapeutic effects of MT were unclear. A large-scale, multiple-center randomized controlled study should be performed to explore the long-term and sustained effects of MT on stroke patients in the future.

5. Conclusion

In summary, MT combined with conventional occupational therapy can effectively improve upper extremity motor performance and enhance the ability to perform activities of daily living in stroke patients, and MT can be considered as an adjunctive treatment for upper limb motor function rehabilitation within 6 months of the onset of the stroke. However, MT did not seem to have an additional effect in improving the activity participation component of the stroke patients at least in the present study.

Data Availability

Ask corresponding author for original data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors disclaimed that they have no commercial or other financial conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

WX performed the statistical analysis and wrote the original manuscript. LL, LXL, and ZHH collected and summarized data. LZC and PY performed the evaluation for patients. LXJ performed the research. YQ and WJ participated in the manuscript’s revision. LHY was involved in the study conception and design. All authors read and endorsed the final manuscript. Xin Wen, LiLi, and Xuelian Li contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

We are deeply grateful to our co-authors at the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Yuebei People’s Hospital.

References

M. Kelly-Hayes, A. Beiser, C. S. Kase, A. Scaramucci, R. B. D'Agostino, and P. A. Wolf, “The influence of gender and age on disability following ischemic stroke: the Framingham study,” Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 119–126, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. W. Duncan, L. B. Goldstein, D. Matchar, G. W. Divine, and J. Feussner, “Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements,” Stroke, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1084–1089, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Wade, R. Langton-Hewer, V. A. Wood, C. E. Skilbeck, and H. M. Ismail, “The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 521–524, 1983.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. L. Crichton, B. D. Bray, C. McKevitt, A. G. Rudd, and C. D. A. Wolfe, “Patient outcomes up to 15 years after stroke: survival, disability, quality of life, cognition and mental health,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, vol. 87, no. 10, pp. 1091–1098, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. V. Krishnamurthi, V. L. Feigin, M. H. Forouzanfar et al., “Global and regional burden of first-ever ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke during 1990-2010: findings from the global burden of disease study 2010,” The Lancet Global Health, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. e259–e281, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Lum, D. Reinkensmeyer, R. Mahoney, W. Z. Rymer, and C. Burgar, “Robotic devices for movement therapy after stroke: current status and challenges to clinical acceptance,” Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 40–53, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. W. Dromerick, D. F. Edwards, and M. Hahn, “Does the application of constraint-induced movement therapy during acute rehabilitation reduce arm impairment after ischemic stroke?” Stroke, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2984–2988, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zheng, M. Mao, Y. Cao, and X. Lu, “Contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improves wrist dorsiflexion and upper limb function in patients with early-phase stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 103–108, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yang, H. Pan, W. Pan et al., “Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the affected hemisphere enhances hand functional recovery in subacute adult stroke patients: a randomized trial,” Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 13, article 636184, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Kwakkel and B. Kollen, “Predicting improvement in the upper paretic limb after stroke: a longitudinal prospective study,” Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 5-6, pp. 453–460, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
M. E. Michielsen, R. W. Selles, J. N. van der Geest et al., “Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients: a phase II randomized controlled trial,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 223–233, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Sathian, A. I. Greenspan, and S. L. Wolf, “Doing it with mirrors: a case study of a novel approach to neurorehabilitation,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 73–76, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. L. Altschuler, S. B. Wisdom, L. Stone et al., “Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror,” The Lancet, vol. 353, no. 9169, pp. 2035-2036, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Nojima, T. Mima, S. Koganemaru, M. N. Thabit, H. Fukuyama, and T. Kawamata, “Human motor plasticity induced by mirror visual feedback,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1293–1300, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Calmels, P. Holmes, G. Jarry et al., “Variability of EEG synchronization prior to and during observation and execution of a sequential finger movement,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 251–266, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. I. Garry, A. Loftus, and J. J. Summers, “Mirror, mirror on the wall: viewing a mirror reflection of unilateral hand movements facilitates ipsilateral M1 excitability,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 163, no. 1, pp. 118–122, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Zult, G. Howatson, E. E. Kádár, J. P. Farthing, and T. Hortobágyi, “Role of the mirror-neuron system in cross-education,” Sports Medicine, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 159–178, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Garrison, C. J. Winstein, and L. Aziz-Zadeh, “The mirror neuron system: a neural substrate for methods in stroke rehabilitation,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 404–412, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Rizzolatti, M. Fabbri-Destro, and L. Cattaneo, “Mirror neurons and their clinical relevance,” Nature Clinical Practice. Neurology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 24–34, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Neva, M. Vesia, A. M. Singh, and W. R. Staines, “Modulation of left primary motor cortex excitability after bimanual training and intermittent theta burst stimulation to left dorsal premotor cortex,” Behavioural Brain Research, vol. 261, pp. 289–296, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. McCombe Waller, J. Whitall, T. Jenkins et al., “Sequencing bilateral and unilateral task-oriented training versus task oriented training alone to improve arm function in individuals with chronic stroke,” BMC Neurology, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 236, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Y. Madhoun, B. Tan, Y. Feng, Y. Zhou, C. Zhou, and L. Yu, “Task-based mirror therapy enhances the upper limb motor function in subacute stroke patients: a randomized control trial,” European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 265–271, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Lee and G. Lee, “Effect of afferent electrical stimulation with mirror therapy on motor function, balance, and gait in chronic stroke survivors: a randomized controlled trial,” European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 442–449, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. C. Chan and S. S. Y. Au-Yeung, “Recovery in the severely impaired arm post-stroke after mirror therapy: a randomized controlled study,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 572–577, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Colomer, E. Noé, and R. Llorens, “Mirror therapy in chronic stroke survivors with severely impaired upper limb function: a randomized controlled trial,” European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 271–278, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Gurbuz, S. I. Afsar, S. Ayaş, and S. N. S. Cosar, “Effect of mirror therapy on upper extremity motor function in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Physical Therapy Science, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 2501–2506, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. B. Lim, H. J. Lee, J. Yoo, H. J. Yun, and H. J. Hwang, “Efficacy of mirror therapy containing functional tasks in poststroke patients,” Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 629–636, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Thieme, N. Morkisch, J. Mehrholz et al., “Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2018, no. 7, article Cd008449, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. He, X. X. Chen, K. X. Luo, L. H. Gu, Z. J. He, and J. Y. Zhou, “Influence of mirror therapy combined with occupational therapy on upper limb motor function and ADL in hemiplegia after stroke,” Journal of Kunming Medical University, vol. 42, pp. 129–133, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
P. S. Lum, C. G. Burgar, P. C. Shor, M. Majmundar, and M. Van der Loos, “Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 952–959, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Lin, Y. T. Chen, P. C. Huang et al., “Effect of mirror therapy combined with somatosensory stimulation on motor recovery and daily function in stroke patients: a pilot study,” Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 422–428, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Kasner, B. L. Cucchiara, M. L. McGarvey, J. M. Luciano, D. S. Liebeskind, and J. A. Chalela, “Modified National Institutes of Health Stroke scale can be estimated from medical records,” Stroke, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 568–570, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Zimmerman, J. H. Martinez, D. Young, I. Chelminski, and K. Dalrymple, “Severity classification on the Hamilton depression rating scale,” Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 150, no. 2, pp. 384–388, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. W. Bohannon and M. B. Smith, “Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity,” Physical Therapy, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 206-207, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Samuelkamaleshkumar, S. Reethajanetsureka, P. Pauljebaraj, B. Benshamir, S. M. Padankatti, and J. A. David, “Mirror therapy enhances motor performance in the paretic upper limb after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 95, no. 11, pp. 2000–2005, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Yao, I. D. Florez, P. Zhang et al., “Clinical research methods for treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, screening, and prevention: a narrative review,” Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 130–136, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Gladstone, C. J. Danells, and S. E. Black, “The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 232–240, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Fugl-Meyer, L. Jääskö, I. Leyman, S. Olsson, and S. Steglind, “The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance,” Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 13–31, 1975.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Sanford, J. Moreland, L. R. Swanson, P. W. Stratford, and C. Gowland, “Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke,” Physical Therapy, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 447–454, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. C. Lyle, “A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research,” International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 483–492, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. C. Wagenaar, O. G. Meijer, P. van Wieringen et al., “The functional recovery of stroke: a comparison between neuro-developmental treatment and the Brunnstrom method,” Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Yozbatiran, L. Der-Yeghiaian, and S. C. Cramer, “A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 78–90, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. P. Lawton and E. M. Brody, “Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living,” Gerontologist, vol. 9, 3 Part 1, pp. 179–186, 1969.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Guo and A. Sapra, Instrumental Activity of Daily Living, StatPearls Publishing LLC, Treasure Island (FL), 2022.
F. Le Duff, A. E. Develay, J. Quetel et al., “The 2008-2012 French Alzheimer plan: description of the national Alzheimer information system,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 891–902, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Lee, H. Y. Cho, and C. H. Song, “The mirror therapy program enhances upper-limb motor recovery and motor function in acute stroke patients,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 91, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Dohle, J. Püllen, A. Nakaten, J. Küst, C. Rietz, and H. Karbe, “Mirror therapy promotes recovery from severe hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 209–217, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Cacchio, E. De Blasis, V. De Blasis, V. Santilli, and G. Spacca, “Mirror therapy in complex regional pain syndrome type 1 of the upper limb in stroke patients,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 792–799, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Yavuzer, R. Selles, N. Sezer et al., “Mirror therapy improves hand function in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 393–398, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Y. Wu, P. C. Huang, Y. T. Chen, K. C. Lin, and H. W. Yang, “Effects of mirror therapy on motor and sensory recovery in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 1023–1030, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. T. Carmichael, “Cellular and molecular mechanisms of neural repair after stroke: making waves,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 735–742, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Thorsén, L. W. Holmqvist, J. de Pedro-Cuesta, and L. von Koch, “A randomized controlled trial of early supported discharge and continued rehabilitation at home after stroke: five-year follow-up of patient outcome,” Stroke, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 297–303, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Chen, Q. Wu, Z. Guo, G. Liu, and Y. Cui, “Influence of mirror therapy on lower-limb motor function, ADL and balance in hemiplegia after stroke,” Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 34, pp. 539–543, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
J. A. Falconer, B. J. Naughton, D. C. Strasser, and J. M. Sinacore, “Stroke inpatient rehabilitation: a comparison across age groups,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 39–44, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. W. McDonald, K. S. Hayward, I. C. M. Rosbergen, M. S. Jeffers, and D. Corbett, “Is environmental enrichment ready for clinical application in human post-stroke rehabilitation?” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 135, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Jolliffe, N. A. Lannin, D. A. Cadilhac, and T. Hoffmann, “Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines to identify recommendations for rehabilitation after stroke and other acquired brain injuries,” BMJ Open, vol. 8, no. 2, article e018791, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. C. Cramer, “Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 272–287, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Cassidy and S. C. Cramer, “Spontaneous and therapeutic-induced mechanisms of functional recovery after stroke,” Translational Stroke Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33–46, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Y. Park, M. Chang, K. M. Kim, and H. J. Kim, “The effect of mirror therapy on upper-extremity function and activities of daily living in stroke patients,” Journal of Physical Therapy Science, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1681–1683, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Li, H. M. Pang, and J. L. Li, “The effect of Mirror visual feedbck therapy in stroke patients with hemiplegia: a meta analysis,” Chinese Journal of Medicinal Guide, vol. 23, pp. 586–592, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Xin Wen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

3262

Downloads

2183

Citations