2016
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00574
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neurophysiological Characterization of Subacute Stroke Patients: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract: Various degrees of neural reorganization may occur in affected and unaffected hemispheres in the early phase after stroke and several months later. Recent literature suggests to apply a stratification based on lesion location and to consider patients with cortico-subcortical and subcortical strokes separately: different lesion location may also influence therapeutic response. In this study we used a longitudinal approach to perform TMS assessment (Motor Evoked Potentials, MEP, and Silent Period, SP) and clinic… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The present study importantly described that the pdBSI index could be explicative of neurological status only in subcortical stroke and highlighted the direct relation between brain post lesional reorganization and functional status in this type of lesions. This result is in agreement with previous studies, which described the relation between subcortical lesion and clinical status, with a specific involvement of UH activity (Thickbroom et al, 2015 ; Lamola et al, 2016 ). One of these studies showed a direct correlation between the UH excitability and the clinical scales in the subacute stroke phase (Thickbroom et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The present study importantly described that the pdBSI index could be explicative of neurological status only in subcortical stroke and highlighted the direct relation between brain post lesional reorganization and functional status in this type of lesions. This result is in agreement with previous studies, which described the relation between subcortical lesion and clinical status, with a specific involvement of UH activity (Thickbroom et al, 2015 ; Lamola et al, 2016 ). One of these studies showed a direct correlation between the UH excitability and the clinical scales in the subacute stroke phase (Thickbroom et al, 2015 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…One of these studies showed a direct correlation between the UH excitability and the clinical scales in the subacute stroke phase (Thickbroom et al, 2015 ). Moreover, the reduction of unaffected intracortical inhibition in subcortical stroke patients played an important role in effective motor recovery at 3 months after the acute event (Lamola et al, 2016 ). While these studies described the role of motor cortex and cortico-spinal tract in motor function, the innovative result of our study is the description of the specific bilateral process in subcortical stroke involved in the patients’ functional status by means of electrical cortical activity analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, patients with severe paresis (MSC muscle score 0–1) of the upper extremity, who experience motor recovery, are likely to have an early AMP improvement, even when clinical examination cannot be detected for motor recovery ( 35 ). Besides, some studies show that TMS parameters are more sensitive in longer follow-up periods in terms of motor function recovery in patients with acute ischemic stroke ( 36 ). In this study, there seemed to be a clear association between AMP and motor recovery than CMCT and RMT in a two-week rehabilitation therapy—an observation that indicated the superior predictive ability of AMP for functional recovery over a short time period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent findings based on TMS, fMRI and EEG studies pointed out that cortico-subcortical and subcortical stroke patients have different cortical activity and excitability levels of the motor cortex ( Luft et al, 2004 ; Thickbroom et al, 2015 ; Lamola et al, 2016 ; Fanciullacci et al, 2017 ; Sarasso et al, 2020 ). However, the impact of these differences on functional outcome has not been fully elucidated yet.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%