Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part A: Proportional Stroke Recovery in the Rat

27Citations
Citations of this article
100Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. In human upper-limb stroke, initial level of functional impairment or corticospinal tract injury can accurately predict the degree of poststroke recovery, independent of rehabilitation practices. This proportional recovery rule implies that current rehabilitation practices may play little or no role in brain repair, with recovery largely a result of spontaneous biological recovery processes. Objective. The present study sought to determine if similar biomarkers predict recovery of poststroke function in rats, indicating that an endogenous biological recovery process might be preserved across mammalian species. Methods. Using a cohort of 593 male Sprague-Dawley rats, we predicted poststroke change in pellet retrieval in the Montoya staircase-reaching task based on initial impairment alone. Stratification of the sample into “fitters” and “nonfitters” of the proportional recovery rule using hierarchical cluster analysis allowed identification of distinguishing characteristics of these subgroups. Results. Approximately 30% of subjects were identified as fitters of the rule. These rats showed recovery in proportion to their initial level of impairment of 66% (95% CI = 62%-70%). This interval overlaps with those of multiple human clinical trials. A number of variables, including less severe infarct volumes and initial poststroke impairments distinguished fitters of the rule from nonfitters. Conclusions. These findings suggest that proportional recovery is a cross-species phenomenon that can be used to uncover biological mechanisms contributing to stroke recovery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jeffers, M. S., Karthikeyan, S., & Corbett, D. (2018). Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part A: Proportional Stroke Recovery in the Rat. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 32(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317751210

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free