Abstract
[Purpose] The trunk muscles frequently become weak after stroke, thus impacting overall activities of daily living. However, activities of daily living items closely related with trunk strength remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the influence of trunk muscle weakness on activities of daily living items. [Subjects] The subjects were 24 stroke patients who fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: first stroke and the absence of severe paralysis, marked cognitive function deterioration, unilateral spatial neglect or apathy. [Methods] According to abdominal strength, the 24 patients were divided into a nonweakness group and a weakness group. For the assessment, we used the stroke impairment assessment set, the Berg balance scale, a simple test for evaluating hand function, grip strength, and functional independence measure scale scores and the results were compared between the groups. [Results] The Berg balance scale score and scores for dressing, toilet use, transfer to bed, and walk items of the functional independence measure were significantly lower in the weakness group than in the nonweakness group. [Conclusion] Our results suggest that weakness of the abdominal muscles adversely impacts the balance of patients with mild stroke as well as their ability to dress, use a toilet, transfer, and walk. Trunk training, including abdominal muscle exercises, can effectively improve the performance of these activities of daily living items.
Key words: Stroke, Activities of daily living, Abdominal muscles
INTRODUCTION
Trunk stability is essential for maintaining antigravity postures such as sitting and standing, and the smooth execution of limb movements1,2,3). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and electrical stimulation studies4,5,6) have revealed that the trunk muscles are innervated by fibers from both brain hemispheres. Therefore, the impairment of trunk muscle function is less than that of the affected side limb muscle function in patients with unihemispheric stroke6). However, previous studies have shown that trunk muscle strength is lower in patients with stroke compared with that of healthy age-matched subjects7,8,9,10,11). Bohannon et al.8) reported that stroke patients demonstrated weakness during lateral and forward flexion of the trunk. Weakness of the trunk muscles influences balance and activities of daily living (ADL)11). Karatas et al.11) reported a significant positive correlation of trunk muscle strength with balance and ADL, suggesting that exercise of the trunk muscles is important for the improvement of ADL.
Although previous studies have reported that overall ADL is related to trunk muscle strength11), the relationships of ADL items (e.g., eating, grooming, dressing, etc.) and trunk strength remain unclear. In addition, ADL independence is reportedly related to not only trunk muscle strength but also to the motor function of the paretic limbs12,13,14), sensory deficits15, 16), cognitive disorders17, 18), apathy19), and unilateral spatial neglect13, 20). Accordingly, to clarify the influence of trunk strength on ADL, these factors should be evaluated individually whenever possible. Therefore, the present study evaluated the influence of trunk muscle strength on individual ADL items among mild stroke patients without severe motor or cognitive disorders, or apathy.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
This was a retrospective secondary analysis of a database. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board of Northern Fukushima Medical Center (Fukushima, Japan; No.56).
The study cohort included 24 stroke patients (12 men and 12 women) who were admitted to the Northern Fukushima Medical Center from April 2011 to November 2013 and fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: first stroke; unilateral supratentorial hemispheric lesion; and the absence of severe paralysis (a maximum of 4 motor function items of the Stroke Impairment Assessment Set21, 22) (SIAS), severe sensory deficits (a maximum of 2 sensory items of SIAS), marked cognitive function deterioration [≤5 cognitive items of the Functional Independence Measure23) (FIM)], unilateral spatial neglect (unilateral spatial neglect item of SIAS, 3), and apathy [vitality index24), ≥8]. The mean patient age was 70.5 years, and the mean time from stroke onset was 63.5 days.
We evaluated SIAS21, 22), the Berg balance scale (BBS)25), and FIM scores23), conducted a simple test for evaluating hand function (STEF)26, 27), and measured grip strength. SIAS is a tool for measuring stroke impairment and includes the following items: motor function, muscle tone, sensory function, range of motion, pain, trunk function, visuospatial function, speech, and unaffected side function. The BBS25) (score range, 0–56) is designed to measure the balance of the elderly and consists of 14 items, including balance while sitting and standing on one leg, which requires a high level of balance ability. The STEF26, 27) (score range, 0–100) is a standardized test for assessing upper extremity function. The grip strength of the affected and unaffected hands was recorded two times in the sitting position using a squeeze dynamometer. The highest grip strength was recorded as the subject’s grip strength. The FIM23) evaluates 18 activities in the motor and cognitive domains. The motor domain has 13 items in the areas of self-care, sphincter control, transfer, and locomotion. The cognitive domain includes 5 items in communication and social cognition subscales.
The 24 stroke patients were divided into 2 groups according to the score for abdominal strength on the SIAS: a nonweakness group, including patients with a score of 3 (n = 15), and a weakness group, including patients with a score of ≤2 (n = 9). Subject characteristics are listed in Table 1. Although there were no significant differences in the time since stroke onset, gender, and the side of the affected limb, there was a significant difference in age between the two groups.
Table 1. Demographic and stroke-related characteristics of the study subjects.
| Nonweakness group (n=15) |
Weakness group (n=9) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Age (yrs) | 66.2 ± 13.3* | 77.7 ± 14.4 |
| Days post-stroke | 62.7 ± 15.5 | 64.9 ± 15.5 |
| Women (%) | 53 | 44 |
| Right side hemiparesis (%) | 60 | 67 |
*Significant difference between groups
The t-test was used to compare age, time since stroke, and time since admission between the nonweakness and weakness groups. Gender, side of the affected limb, and type of CVA were compared using the χ2 test. SIAS, BBS, STEF, grip strength, and FIM scores were compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney test. SPSS for Windows software (version 22) was used for all statistical analyses. A probability (p) value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, scores for abdominal muscle strength on the SIAS and BBS were significantly lower in the weakness group than in the nonweakness group. However, there were no significant differences in SIAS items except abdominal muscle strength, grip strength, and STEF score between the two groups.
Table 2. Comparison of the two groups’ stroke impairment assessment set.
| Items | Nonweakness group | Weakness group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | Median | Range | |
| Motor function | ||||
| Knee-mouth test | 4 | 4–5 | 5 | 4–5 |
| Finger-function test | 4 | 4–5 | 5 | 4–5 |
| Hip-flexion test | 5 | 4–5 | 5 | 4–5 |
| Knee-extension test | 5 | 4–5 | 5 | 4–5 |
| Foot-pat test | 5 | 4–5 | 5 | 4–5 |
| Muscle tone | ||||
| U/E muscle tone | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| L/E muscle tone | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| U/E deep tendon reflex | 2 | 1–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| U/E deep tendon reflex | 3 | 1–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| Sensation | ||||
| U/E light touch | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| L/E light touch | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| U/E position | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| U/E position | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| Range of motion | ||||
| U/E ROM | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| L/E ROM | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| Pain | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| Trunk function | ||||
| Verticality test | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2–3 |
| Unaffected side function | ||||
| Grip strength | 2 | 1–3 | 2 | 2–3 |
| Quadriceps strength | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 1–3 |
| Visuo-spatial deficit | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Speech | 3 | 2–3 | 3 | 1–3 |
| Total score | 71 | 61–75 | 68 | 64–74 |
| Abdominal muscle strength | 3* | 3 | 2 | 1–2 |
*Significant difference between groups. There was a significant difference in the abdominal muscle strength because subjects were divided into two groups according to it. U/E: upper extremity; L/E: lower extremity; ROM: range of motion
Table 3. Comparison of the two groups’ grip strength and STEF.
| Outcome | Nonweakness group | Weakness group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Affected side grip strength | 18.4 | 12.8 | 17.7 | 9.3 |
| Unaffected side grip strength | 27.8 | 11.9 | 22.3 | 7.6 |
| Affected side STEF | 80.4 | 18.5 | 75.7 | 18.3 |
| Unaffected side STEF | 93.0 | 5.9 | 89.0 | 9.2 |
STEF: a simple test for evaluating hand function. There was no statistically significant difference in grip strength and STEF between the two groups.
With respect to ADL, dressing the upper and lower body, toilet use, transfer to bed, and walk items as well as the motor domain score and total score on the FIM were significantly lower in the weakness group than in the nonweakness group (Table 4). There were no significant differences in cognitive items and cognitive domain scores on the FIM between the two groups.
Table 4. Comparison of the two groups’ Berg balance scale and functional independence measure scores.
| Items | Nonweakness group | Weakness group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Range | Median | Range | |
| Berg balance scale | 50.2* | 6.8 | 41.2 | 11.8 |
| FIM | ||||
| Self-care | ||||
| Eating | 7 | 6–7 | 7 | 5–7 |
| Grooming | 7 | 6–7 | 7 | 5–7 |
| Bathing | 7 | 5–7 | 5 | 1–7 |
| Dressing upper body | 5* | 6–7 | 5 | 3–7 |
| Dressing lower body | 7* | 6–7 | 5 | 2–7 |
| Toileting | 7* | 5–7 | 6 | 4–6 |
| Sphincter control | ||||
| Bladder management | 7 | 5–7 | 6 | 5–7 |
| Bowel management | 7 | 5–7 | 6 | 5–7 |
| Transfer | ||||
| Bed, chair, wheelchair | 7* | 6–7 | 6 | 5–7 |
| Toilet | 7 | 5–7 | 6 | 5–7 |
| Tub, Shower | 5 | 3–7 | 5 | 1–7 |
| Locomotion | ||||
| Walk/wheelchair | 6* | 4–7 | 5 | 1–7 |
| Stairs | 5 | 1–7 | 5 | 1–7 |
| Communication | ||||
| Comprehension | 7 | 5–7 | 6 | 5–7 |
| Expression | 7 | 5–7 | 7 | 5–7 |
| Social cognition | ||||
| Social interaction | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6–7 |
| Problem solving | 6 | 5–7 | 6 | 5–7 |
| Memory | 7 | 5–7 | 7 | 5–7 |
| FIM motor score | 84* | 73–91 | 66 | 50–91 |
| FIM cognitive score | 34 | 27–35 | 32 | 28–34 |
| FIM total score | 116* | 100–126 | 100 | 78–125 |
FIM indicates functional independence measure. *Significant difference between groups
DISCUSSION
Trunk strength weakness as well as motor paralysis and sensory deficits frequently occur after stroke7,8,9,10,11). Disuse may be one of the causes of muscle weakness9,10,11). In this study, the relationships between ADL items and the abdominal muscle strength of stroke patients were investigated.
Our results revealed significant differences in the scores for balance and the ADL items of independent dressing, toilet use, transfer, and locomotion between the weakness and nonweakness groups. We reasoned that the major factor influencing these differences in scores was abdominal muscle strength, because there were no differences in scores for the motor and cognitive items other than abdominal muscle strength. Although the correlation of abdominal muscle strength with transfer and locomotion has been reported11, 28), this is the first report, to our knowledge, to identify the relationship of abdominal muscle strength with the ability to dress and use the toilet. Dressing requires a high level of trunk stabilization because it involves limb movements and shifts in the center of gravity while sitting without back support or standing. With regard to toilet use, adjustment of clothing before and after toilet use while standing and maintaining perineal hygiene requires the ability to control the trunk. On the other hand, it is believed that eating, grooming, and bathing require neither abdominal muscle strength nor balance because these activities can be performed even in a seated position using a backrest.
There were a number of limitations to our study. First, there was a significant difference in mean age between the two groups. Although there was no significant difference in motor and cognitive functions between groups, the possibility that ADL are influenced by age-induced deterioration (e.g., agility and endurance) cannot be overlooked. Second, this study had a small sample size. Third, although the subjects in this study were mild stroke patients, the influence of abdominal muscle strength on ADL would be different in severe stroke patients, such as those with severe paralysis and cognitive disorders. Finally, although the present study clarified some of the relationships between abdominal muscle strength and ADL items, it is unknown whether or not exercise to build abdominal muscle strength can improve balance and the ability to dress, use the toilet, transfer, or walk. However, several authors have reported that trunk stabilization exercises improve the abdominal muscle strength and balance of stroke patients29, 30). Therefore, there’s a possibility that such exercises could improve the performance of these ADL items by stroke patients with mild paralysis. Further research is required.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number 26893250).
REFERENCES
- 1.Moore S, Brunt D: Effects of trunk support and target distance on postural adjustments prior to a rapid reaching task by seated subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 1991, 72: 638–641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cholewicki J, Panjabi MM, Khachatryan A: Stabilizing function of trunk flexor-extensor muscles around a neutral spine posture. Spine, 1997, 22: 2207–2212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hodges PW, Richardson CA: Relationship between limb movement speed and associated contraction of the trunk muscles. Ergonomics, 1997, 40: 1220–1230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Plassman BL, Gandevia SC: Comparison of human motor cortical projections to abdominal muscles and intrinsic muscles of the hand. Exp Brain Res, 1989, 78: 301–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ferbert A, Caramia D, Priori A, et al. : Cortical projection to erector spinae muscles in man as assessed by focal transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1992, 85: 382–387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Fujiwara T, Sonoda S, Okajima Y, et al. : The relationships between trunk function and the findings of transcranial magnetic stimulation among patients with stroke. J Rehabil Med, 2001, 33: 249–255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bohannon RW: Lateral trunk flexion strength: impairment, measurement reliability and implications following unilateral brain lesion. Int J Rehabil Res, 1992, 15: 249–251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bohannon RW, Cassidy D, Walsh S: Trunk muscle strength is impaired multidirectionally after stroke. Clin Rehabil, 1995, 9: 47–51. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Tanaka S, Hachisuka K, Ogata H: Trunk rotatory muscle performance in post-stroke hemiplegic patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 1997, 76: 366–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tanaka S, Hachisuka K, Ogata H: Muscle strength of trunk flexion-extension in post-stroke hemiplegic patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 1998, 77: 288–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Karatas M, Cetin N, Bayramoglu M, et al. : Trunk muscle strength in relation to balance and functional disability in unihemispheric stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2004, 83: 81–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Akbari S, Ashayeri H, Fahimi MA, et al. : The correlation of independency in activities of daily living performance with cognitive status and the intensity of neurological impairment in right-handed stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation, 2011, 29: 311–316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Gialanella B, Santoro R, Ferlucci C: Predicting outcome after stroke: the roll of basic activities of daily living. Eur Phys Rehabil Med, 2013, 49: 629–637. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hirayama M, Nagata Y, Tsutou A: Relationship between body composition and functional outcomes in males with subacute stroke. J Phys Ther Sci, 2007, 19: 177–182. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Welmer AK, von Arbin M, Murray V, et al. : Determinants of mobility and self-care in older people with stroke: importance of somatosensory and perceptual functions. Phys Ther, 2007, 87: 1633–1641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tyson SF, Crow JL, Connell L, et al. : Sensory impairments of the lower limb after stroke: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Top Stroke Rehabil, 2013, 20: 441–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ruchinskas RA, Singer HK, Repetz NK: Cognitive status and ambulation in geriatric rehabilitation: walking without thinking? Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2000, 81: 1224–1228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cho K, Lee W: Cognitive factors associated with activities of daily living in post-stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci, 2012, 24: 779–782. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mikami K, Jorge RE, Moser DJ, et al. : Incident apathy during the first year after stroke and its effect on physical and cognitive recovery. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2013, 21: 848–854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Nijboer T, van de Port I, Schepers V, et al. : Predicting functional outcome after stroke: the influence of neglect on basic activities in daily living. Front Hum Neurosci, 2013, 7: 182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Chino N, Sonoda S, Domen K, et al. : Stroke impairment assessment set (SIAS): a new evaluation instrument for stroke patients. Jpn J Rehabil Med, 1994, 31: 119–125. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chino N, Sonoda S, Domen K, et al. : Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (SIAS). In: Chino N, Melvin JL, eds. Functional evaluation of stroke patients. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp 19–31. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hamilton BB, Granger CV: Disability outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Phys Ther, 1994, 74: 494–503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Toba K, Nakai R, Akishita M, et al. : Vitality Index as a useful tool to assess elderly with dementia. Geriatr Gerontol Int, 2002, 2: 23–29. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, et al. : Measuring Balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can, 1989, 41: 304–311. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kaneko T, Muraki T: Development and standardization of the hand function test. Bulletin of Allied Medical Sciences Kobe, 1990, 6: 49–54.
- 27.Kawahira K, Noma T, Iiyama J, et al. : Improvements in limb kinetic apraxia by repetition of a newly designed facilitation exercise in a patient with corticobasal degeneration. Int J Rehabil Res, 2009, 32: 178–183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Takei K, Sugimoto S, Kuwahara K, et al. Investigation of predictors for the ability of transfer activity in stroke patients. Rigakuryoho Kagaku, 2006, 21: 369–374. (in Japanese). [Google Scholar]
- 29.Seo DK, Kwon OS, Kim JH, et al. : The effect of trunk stabilization exercise on the thickness of the deep abdominal muscles and balance in patients with chronic stroke. J Phys Ther Sci, 2012, 24: 181–185. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yoo J, Jeong J, Lee W: The effect of trunk stabilization exercise using an unstable surface on the abdominal muscle structure and balance of stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci, 2014, 26: 857–859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]