Issue 25-2, 2026

Original article

https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2026-25-2-23-32

Dysfunctional Variability of Post-Stroke Spastic Akinesia in Light of Rehabilitation Dynamics: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study

View article (Download PDF file)



Download XML file

ORCIDYakov Yu. Zakharov1,2,*, ORCIDAndrey A. Belkin1,2, ORCIDDmitry G. Pozdnyakov1

1Clinical Institute of Brain, Berezovsky, Russia
2Ural State Medical University, Ekaterinburg, Russia


ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION.  Akinesia of limb segments does not always clearly determine an unfavorable prognosis for post-stroke motor recovery, which may indicate dysfunctional variability that determines uniform clinical manifestations, but different effectiveness of the rehabilitation protocol. It is advisable to search for additional biomarkers that differentiate the dysfunctional pathogenesis of a similar clinical picture.

AIM.  Comparison of the effectiveness of motor recovery and spasticity regression after standard and extended (with transcranial neuromodulation) rehabilitation of patients with post-stroke spastic akinesia of the hand with different functional states of the corticospinal tract (CST) in the short term.

MATERIALS AND METHODS.  A retrospective observational comparative study included 294 subjects (aged 23 to 83 years; 52.4 % men) with post-stroke spastic akinesia of the hand. Based on the resting motor response threshold, motor evoked potential amplitude, and central motor conduction time of the cortical representation of m. Abductor pollicis brevis of the affected hemisphere, the patients were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 complete CST lesion; Group 2 partial CST lesion; Group 3 intact CST. Each group was divided into subgroups, the representatives of which received a standard rehabilitation course with or without repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clinical effectiveness was assessed immediately after the treatment course using the MRC Muscle Scale and mAS.

RESULTS.  The highest motor recovery effectiveness in a standard rehabilitation (without rTMS) was observed in group 3 (p < 0.0167). rTMS increased motor recovery effectiveness in groups 1 (p = 0.015) and 2 (p = 0.02). Spasticity regression was observed in the range of 25.7–32.1 % and did not differ significantly in the compared subgroups. A high positive correlation between cases of motor recovery and spasticity regression was identified in subgroups of Group 3.

DISCUSSION.  The state of the CST determines not only clinical manifestations, but also the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches.

CONCLUSION.  rTMS in CST lesions demonstrates effectiveness in restoring voluntary movements, but does not affect spasticity. With the preservation of CST, the restoration of motor skills and regression of spasticity are associated with and probably caused by the restitution of the corticoreticular tract.


KEYWORDS: stroke, physical rehabilitation, transcranial magnetic stimulation

FOR CITATION: Zakharov Ya.Yu., Belkin A.A., Pozdnyakov D.G. Dysfunctional Variability of Post­Stroke Spastic Akinesia in Light of Rehabilitation Dynamics: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2026; 25(2):23–32. https://doi.org/10.38025/2078­1962­2026­25­2­23­32 (In Russ.).

FOR CORRESPONDENCE:

Yakov Yu. Zakharov, E­mail:  zakh.ekb@mail.ru,  ofud@neuro­clinic.ru


References:

  1. Salvalaggio S., Boccuni L., Turolla A. Patient’s assessment and prediction of recovery after stroke: a roadmap for clinicians. Arch Physiother. 2023; 13(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00167-4
  2. van der Vliet R., Selles R.W., Andrinopoulou E.R., et al. Predicting Upper Limb Motor Impairment Recovery after Stroke: A Mixture Model. Ann Neurol. 2020; 87(3): 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.25679
  3. Rosso C., Lamy J.C. Prediction of motor recovery after stroke: being pragmatic or innovative? Curr Opin Neurol. 2020; 33(4): 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000843
  4. Jang S.H., Chang C.H., Jung Y.J., Seo Y.S., et al. Recovery process of bilaterally injured corticoreticulospinal tracts in a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage: Case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(50): e13401. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013401
  5. Jang S.H., Cho M.K. Relationship of Recovery of Contralesional Ankle Weakness With the Corticospinal and Corticoreticular Tracts in Stroke Patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022; 101(7): 659–665. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001881
  6. Lin L.Y., Ramsey L., Metcalf N.V., et al. Stronger prediction of motor recovery and outcome post-stroke by cortico-spinal tract integrity than functional connectivity. PLoS One. 2018; 13(8): e0202504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202504
  7. Veldema J., Nowak D.A., Gharabaghi A. Resting motor threshold in the course of hand motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021; 18(1): 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00947-8
  8. Bohannon R.W., Smith M.B. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy. 1987; 67(2): 206–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/67.2.206
  9. Супонева Н.А., Юсупова Д.Г., Ильина К.А., и др. Валидация Модифицированной шкалы Эшворта (Modified Ashworth Scale) в России. Анналы клинической и экспериментальной неврологии. 2020; 14(1): 89–96. https://doi.org/10.25692/ACEN.2020.1.10 [Suponeva N.A., Yusupova D.G., Ilyina K.A., et al. Validation of the Modified Ashworth scale In Russia. Annals of clinical and experimental neurology. 2020; 14(1): 89–96. https://doi.org/10.25692/ACEN.2020.1.10 (In Russ.).]
  10. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(1): 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
  11. Jang S.H., Lee S.J. Corticoreticular Tract in the Human Brain: A Mini Review. Front Neurol. 2019; 10: 1188. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01188
  12. Li S., Chen Y.T., Francisco G.E., et al. A Unifying Pathophysiological Account for Post-stroke Spasticity and Disordered Motor Control. Front Neurol. 2019; 10: 468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00468
  13. Cho M.J., Yeo S.S., Lee S.J., Jang S.H. Correlation between spasticity and corticospinal/corticoreticular tract status in stroke patients after early stage. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(17): e33604. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000033604
  14. Claassen J., Kondziella D., Alkhachroum A., et al. Cognitive Motor Dissociation: Gap Analysis and Future Directions. Neurocrit Care. 2024; 40(1): 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-023-01769-3
  15. Halassa M.M., Acsády L. Thalamic Inhibition: Diverse Sources, Diverse Scales. Trends Neurosci. 2016; 39(10): 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2016.08.001
  16. Murata Y., Colonnese M.T. Thalamic inhibitory circuits and network activity development. Brain Res. 2019; 1706: 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.10.024
  17. Bősz E., Plattner V.M., Biró L., et al. A cortico-subcortical loop for motor control via the pontine reticular formation. Cell Rep. 2025; 44(2): 115230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2025.115230
  18. Jang S.H., Seo Y.S. Difference between injuries of the corticospinal tract and corticoreticulospinal tract in patients with diffuse axonal injury: a diffusion tensor tractography study. Int J Neurosci. 2020; 130(2): 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207454.2019.1667779
  19. Grefkes C., Fink G.R. Reorganization of cerebral networks after stroke: New insights from neuroimaging with connectivity approaches. Brain. 2011; 134(5): 1264–1276. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr033
  20. Guo Z., Jin Y., Bai X., et al. Distinction of high- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the functional reorganization of the motor network in stroke patients. Neural Plast. 2021; 2021: 8873221. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8873221



Creative Commons License
The content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

©


This is an open article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by the National Medical Research Center for Rehabilitation and Balneology.