It has become increasingly recognized that the major functional deficits following brain damage are largely due to ‘negative’ features such as weakness and loss of dexterity rather than spasticity. A variety of studies suggest that spasticity is a distinct problem and separate from the loss of dexterity, but that it may be implicated in the formation of muscle contracture and even in the recovery of strength. In order to address these issues, we examined the relationship between spasticity, contracture, strength and dexterity in the affected upper limb following stroke. Spasticity was measured both as increased tonic stretch reflexes and increased resistance to passive stretch (hypertonia). Twenty-four patients were recruited non-selectively from three rehabilitation units within 13 months of their stroke. Few patients exhibited increased tonic reflexes but half were found to have muscle contracture, the earliest at 2 months following stroke. Hypertonia was associated with contracture but not with reflex hyperexcitability. Increased tonic stretch reflexes were observed only in a subgroup of those with contracture and where present could usually be elicited only at the end of muscle range. This finding suggests that instead of spasticity causing contracture, contracture may actually potentiate spasticity in some patients. However, the majority of patients with contracture did not have increased tonic stretch reflexes. In addition, we found no relationship between spasticity and either weakness or loss of dexterity. Therefore, while hypertonia remains an important problem following cerebral lesions, it would appear that the amount of attention directed to reflex hyperexcitability associated with spasticity is out of proportion with its effects. Consequently, hypertonia needs to be clearly distinguished from reflex hyperexcitability in patients with spasticity.

Objective: To compare the Tardieu Scale as a clinical measure of spasticity after stroke with the Ashworth Scale. Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: Sixteen people, living in the community three years after their stroke. Main measures: The Ashworth Scale and Tardieu Scale as well as laboratory measures of spasticity (stretch-induced electromyographic (EMG) activity) and contracture (maximum passive joint excursion) were collected from the affected elbow flexors and extensors and ankle plantarflexors and dorsiflexors by three examiners who were blinded to the results of the other measures. Results: The percentage exact agreement (PEA) between the Tardieu Scale and a laboratory measure of spasticity was 100% for both the elbow flexors and ankle plantarflexors. This was significantly (P=0.02) greater than the PEA of 63% for both muscles between the Ashworth Scale and the same laboratory measure of spasticity. For contracture, the PEA between the Tardieu Scale and a laboratory measure was 94% for both the elbow flexors and the ankle plantarflexors. Pearson correlation coefficients between the Tardieu Scale and laboratory measures of spasticity were 0.86 for the elbow flexors and 0.62 for the ankle plantarflexors and between the Tardieu Scale and laboratory measures of contracture were 0.89 for the elbow flexors and 0.84 for the ankle plantarflexors. Conclusion: In all cases that spasticity was overestimated by the Ashworth Scale, participants had a contracture. These findings suggest that the Tardieu Scale differentiates spasticity from contracture whereas the Ashworth Scale is confounded by it.

In people receiving rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb after stroke, does adding extra rehabilitation (of the same content as the usual rehabilitation) improve activity? What is the amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect? Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Adults aged 18 years or older that had a diagnosis of stroke. Extra rehabilitation with the same content as usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb. Activity measured as lower or upper limb ability. A total of 14 studies, comprising 15 comparisons, met the inclusion criteria. Pooling data from all the included studies showed that extra rehabilitation improved activity immediately after the intervention period (SMD=0.39, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71, I(2)=66%). When only studies with a large increase in rehabilitation (> 100%) were included, the effect was greater (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94, I(2)=44%). There was a trend towards a positive relationship (r=0.53, p=0.09) between extra rehabilitation and improved activity. The turning point on the ROC curve of false versus true benefit (AUC=0.88, p=0.04) indicated that at least an extra 240% of rehabilitation was needed for significant likelihood that extra rehabilitation would improve activity. Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations improves activity in people after stroke. The amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect is large. PROSPERO CRD42012003221. [Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J (2016) Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 182-187].