Is it possible to actively and purposely make use of plasticity and adaptability in the neurorehabilitation treatment of multiple sclerosis patients? A pilot project
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2005
Is it possible to actively and purposely make use of plasticity and adaptability in the neurorehabilitation treatment of multiple sclerosis patients? A pilot project
Objective: To investigate whether neurorehabilitation is able to influence clinical parameters and brain function measured radiologically.
Design: A group of healthy probands was compared with two groups of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, one of which received rehabilitative therapy.
Setting: Outpatient in a university hospital.
Subjects: Twenty-eight patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), 17 of whom received rehabilitative therapy, and 13 healthy controls.
Interventions: Two months of rehabilitative eclectic therapy based on principles of sensorimotor learning and adaptation.
Main measures: Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Beck Depression Inventory Score, Barthel Index, Environment Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
Results: Patients who underwent neurorehabilitation showed a greater drop in fatigue, depression, impairment, disability and handicap and more improvement in quality of life than those who did not receive therapy. Correlation of brain activity between the right and the left hemisphere is greater in healthy individuals than in MS patients. Neurorehabilitation resulted in a trend for increased correlation between the left and the right hemisphere in patients (approaching the standard). In comparison with control groups, signal amplitudes in anatomical areas did not show any significant changes.
Conclusion: Clinical changes seen with neurorehabilitation were not associated with any detectable changes in fMRI observations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Kandel ER. The neurobiology of behaviour. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM eds. Principles of neural science, fourth edition. London: McGraw-Hill, 2000: 5-36.
2.
2 Reddy H, Narayanan S, Arnoutelis R et al. Evidence for adaptive functional changes to brain injury from multiple sclerosis. Brain2000; 123: 2314-2320.
3.
3 Lee M, Reddy H, Johansen-Berg H et al. The motor cortex shows adaptive functional changes to brain injury from multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol2000; 47: 606-613.
4.
4 Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F et al. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science1996; 272: 1791-1794.
5.
5 Liepert J, Bauder H, Wolfgang HR et al. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke2000; 31: 1210-1216.
6.
6 Liepert J, Uhde I, Graf S et al. Motor cortex plasticity during forced-use therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. J Neurol2001; 248: 315-321.
7.
7 Nelles G, Jentzen W, Jueptner M et al. Arm training induced brain plasticity in stroke studied with serial positron emission tomography. Neuroimage2001; 13: 1146-1154.
8.
8 Chollet F, DiPiero V, Wise RJ et al. The functional anatomy of motor recovery after stroke in humans: a study with positron emission tomography. Ann Neurol1991; 29: 63-71.
9.
9 Pineiro R, Pendlebury S, Johansen-Berg H et al. Functional MRI detects posterior shifts in primary sensorimotor cortex activation after stroke: evidence of local adaptive reorganization?Stroke2001; 32: 1134-1139.
10.
10 Seitz RJ, Roland PE, Bohm C et al. Motor learning in man: A positron emission tomographic study. NeuroReport1990; 1: 17-20.
11.
11 Traversa R, Cicinelli P, Oliveri M et al. Neurophysiological follow-up of motor cortical output in stroke patients. Clin Neurophysiol2000; 111: 1695-1703.
12.
12 Johansen-Berg H, Dawes H, Guy C et al. Correlation between motor improvements and altered fMRI activity after rehabilitative therapy. Brain2002; 125: 2731-2742.
13.
13 Clasen J, Liepert J, Wise SP et al. Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol1998; 79: 1117-1123.
14.
14 Davies PM. Normal movement sequences and balance reactions. In: Davies PM ed. Steps to follow. A guide to the treatment of adult hemiplegia. Based on the concept of K. and B. Bobath. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1993: 8-23.
15.
15 Leonard ChT. The neuroscience of motor learning. In: The neuroscience of human movement. St. Louis: Mosby, 1998: 203-229.
16.
16 Mier H. Human learning. In: Toga AW, Mazziotta JC eds. Brain mapping. The systems. London: Academic Press, 2000: 605-620.
17.
17 Squire LR. Mechanisms of memory. Science1986;232:1612-l692
18.
18 Krásensky J, Rasová K, Obenberger J et al. Monitoring the progress of rehabilitation in chronic Multiple Sclerosis patients using functional magnetic resonance imaging (Methodology of investigation of brain activity changes with functional MR). Lékar a Technika2003; 34: 127-136.
19.
19 Felicia G, Corriveau H, Chamberland J et al.An evaluation of the hemiplegic subject based on Bobath approach. Scand J Rehabil Med1988; 20: 1-15.
20.
20 Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry1961; 4: 561-571.
21.
21 Morris LC. Clinical and rehabilitation outcome measures. In: Burks JS, Johnson KP eds. Multiple sclerosis-diagnosis, medical management, and rehabilitation. New York: Demos, 2000: 236-290.
22.
22 Patti F, Ciancio MR, Cacopardo M et al. Effects of a short outpatient rehabilitation treatment on disability of multiple sclerosis patientsa randomised controlled trial. J Neurol2003; 250: 861-866.
23.
23 Lord SE, Wade DT, Halligan PW. A comparison of two physiotherapy treatment approaches to improve walking in multiple sclerosis: a pilot randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil1998; 12: 477-486.
24.
24 Freeman JA, Langgdon DW, Hobart JC. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol1997; 2: 236-244.
25.
25 Yousry TA, Berry I, Filippi M. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1998; 64(suppl): 85-87.
26.
26 Nuyens G, Weerdt W, Ketelaer P et al. Physiotherapy for spasticity in person with multiple sclerosis: an overview. In: Ketelaer P, Battaglia MA eds. Spasticity. Italy: Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, 1996: 13-22.
27.
27 Tesio L, Gatti R, Perucca L et al. Balance disturbance in multiple sclerosis patients: a prescription algorithm for rehabilitation exercise. In: Ketelaer P, Ruutiainen J eds. Ataxia. Italy: Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla, 1995: 85-94.
28.
28 Smeltzer SC, Lavietes MH, Cook SD. Expiratory training in multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1996; 77: 909-912.
29.
29 Vojta V, Peters A. The principle of Vojta. Prague: Grada, 1995 (in Czech).
30.
30 Rauschecker J. Mechanism of compensatory plasticity in the celebellar cortex. Adv Neurol1997; 73: 137-146.
31.
31 Kim SG, Ashe J, Hendrich K et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of motor cortex: hemispheric asymmetry and handedness. Science1993; 261: 615-617.
32.
32 Thompson RF. The neural basis of basic associative learning of discrete behavioural responses. Trends Neurosci1988; 11: 152-155.
