You are not logged in. Press here to login.

Content

List volumes - List articles in this issue

Original report

Frequency of discriminative sensory loss in the hand after stroke in a rehabilitation setting

doi: 10.2340/16501977-0662

Open access

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Somatosensory loss following stroke is common, with negative consequences for functional outcome. However, existing studies typically do not include quantitative measures of discriminative sensibility. The aim of this study was to quantify the proportion of stroke patients presenting with discriminative sensory loss of the hand in the post-acute rehabilitation phase.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of stroke survivors presenting for rehabilitation.
Patients: Fifty-one consecutive patients admitted to a metro-politan rehabilitation centre over a continuous 12-month
period who met selection criteria.
METHODS: Quantitative measures of touch discrimination and limb position sense, with high re-test reliability, good discriminative test properties and objective criteria of abnormality, were employed. Both upper limbs were tested, in counterbalanced order.
RESULTS: Impaired touch discrimination was identified in the hand contralateral to the lesion in 47% of patients, and in the ipsilesional hand in 16%. Forty-nine percent showed impaired limb position sense in the contralesional limb and 20% in the ipsilesional limb. Sixty-seven percent demonstrated impairment of at least one modality in the contrale­sional limb. Ipsilesional impairment was less severe.
CONCLUSION: Discriminative sensory impairment was quantified in the contralesional hand in approximately half of stroke patients presenting for rehabilitation. A clinically significant number also experienced impairment in the ipsilesional “unaffected” hand.

Authors:

Leeanne M. Carey , Thomas A. Matyas

References

  1. Patel AT, Duncan PW, Lai S-M, Studenski S. The relation between impairments and functional outcomes poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 1357–1363.
  2. Han L, Law-Gibson D, Reding M. Key neurological impairments influence function-related group outcomes after stroke. Stroke 2002; 33: 1920–1924.
  3. Sommerfeld DK, von Arbin MH. The impact of somatosensory function on activity performance and length of hospital stay in geriatric patients with stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 149–55.
  4. Carey LM. Somatosensory loss after stroke. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 1995; 7: 51–91.
  5. Reding MJ, Potes E. Rehabilitation outcome following initial unilateral hemispheric stroke: life table analysis approach. Stroke 1988; 19: 1354–1358.
  6. Dromerick AW, Reding MJ. Functional outcome for patients with hemiparesis, hemihypesthesia, and hemianopsia. Does lesion location matter? Stroke 1995; 26: 2023–2026.
  7. Tyson S, Hanley M, Chillala J, Selley A, Tallis R. Sensory loss in hospital-admitted people with stroke: characteristics, associated factors, and relationship with function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 166–172.
  8. Smith DL, Akhtar AJ, Garraway WM. Proprioception and spatial neglect after stroke. Age Ageing 1983; 12: 63–69.
  9. Lee SY, Lim JY, Kang EK, Han M-K, Bae H-J, Paik N-J. Prediction of good functional recovery after stroke based on combined motor and somatosensory evoked potential findings. J Rehabil Med 2010; 42: 16–20.
  10. Carey LM. Loss of somatic sensation. In: Selzer M, Clarke S, Cohen L, Duncan P, Gage FH, editors. Textbook of neural repair and rehabilitation. Vol II. Medical Neurorehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006, p. 231–247.
  11. Nowak D, Hermsdörfer J, Topka H. Deficits of predictive grip force control during object manipulation in acute stroke. J Neurol 2003; 250: 850–860.
  12. Blennerhassett JM, Matyas TA, Carey LM. Impaired discrimination of surface friction contributes to pinch grip deficits after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 263–272.
  13. Hermsdörfer J, Hagl E, Nowak D, Marquardt C. Grip force control during object manipulation in cerebral stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114: 915–929.
  14. Kusoffsky A, Wadell I, Nilsson BY. The relationship between sensory impairment and motor recovery in patients with hemiplegia. Scand J Rehabil Med 1982; 14: 27–32.
  15. Bowsher D, Brooks J, Enevoldson P. Central representation of somatic sensations in the parietal operculum (SII). Eur Neurol 2004; 52: 211–225.
  16. Head H, Holmes G. Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain 1911–1912; 34: 102–271.
  17. Bowsher D. Sensory consequences of stroke. Lancet 1993; 341: 156.
  18. Kim JS, Choi-Kwon S. Discriminative sensory dysfunction after unilateral stroke. Stroke 1996; 27: 677–682.
  19. Connell LA, Lincoln NB, Radford KA. Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clin Rehabil 2008; 22: 758–767.
  20. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. The Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance (RASP): standardization and reliability data. Clin Rehabil 2002; 16: 523–533.
  21. Moskowitz E, Lightbody FE, Freitag NS. Long term follow-up of the poststroke patient. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1972; 53: 167–172.
  22. Yekutiel M. Sensory re-education of the hand after stroke. London: Whurr Publishers; 2000.
  23. Sullivan J, Hedman L. Sensory dysfunction following stroke: incidence, significance, examination, and intervention. Top Stroke Rehabil 2008; 15: 200–217.
  24. Bassetti C, Bogousslavsky J, Regli F. Sensory syndromes in parietal stroke. Neurology 1993; 43: 1942–1949.
  25. Wee J, Hopman W. Stroke impairment predictors of discharge function, length of stay, and discharge destination in stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: 604–612.
  26. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Somatosensory assessment after central nerve damage: the need for standardized clinical measures. Phys Ther Rev 1999; 4: 21–28.
  27. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Current practice and clinical relevance of somatosensory assessment after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 48–55.
  28. Carey LM, Matyas TA, Oke LE. Evaluation of impaired fingertip texture discrimination and wrist position sense in patients affected by stroke: comparison of clinical and new quantitative measures. J Hand Ther 2002; 15: 71–82.
  29. Carey LM, Oke LE, Matyas TA. Impaired touch discrimination after stroke: a quantitative test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 1997; 11: 219–232.
  30. Carey LM, Oke LE, Matyas TA. Impaired limb position sense after stroke: a quantitative test for clinical use. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1271–1278.
  31. Weintraub S, Mesulem M-M. Right cerebral dominance in spatial attention: further evidence based on ipsilateral neglect. Arch Neurol 1987; 44: 621–625.
  32. Schenkenberg T, Bradford DC, Ajax ET. Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology 1980; 30: 509–517.
  33. Annett M. A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol 1970; 61: 303–321.
  34. Corkin S, Milner B, Taylor L. Bilateral sensory loss after unilateral cerebral lesion in man. Trans Am Neurol Assoc 1973; 98: 118–122.
  35. Carey LM, Matyas TA, Oke LE. Evaluation of impaired fingertip texture discrimination and wrist position sense in patients affected by stroke: comparison of clinical and new quantitative measures. J Hand Ther 2002; 15: 71–82.


Related articles

There are no related articles.


Actions


Abstract

Full text

PDF

Supplementary


There is no supplementary for this article.

Related articles


Click here to show related articles

Print information


Volume 43, Issue 3

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0662

Pages: 257-263

View at PubMed