Lower limb muscle synergies during walking after stroke: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the number of muscle synergies and the distribution of muscle weightings in stroke patients during gait.

Material and Methods: This review is registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42018088701) and is written following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search was conducted using following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Naric, Cochrane and PEDro. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and data extraction (subject characteristics, outcome measures and walking protocols) was performed by two independent researchers. The amount and structure of the muscle synergies were the two main outcome measures.

Results: In total, ten studies were included in this review. While four synergies are common in healthy controls, stroke patients often showed less synergies during gait. Synergies were determined by the number of muscles measured which varied greatly between studies. Only Tibialis Anterior, Soleus, Gastrocnemius and Rectus Femoris were assessed in all studies.

Conclusions: A consensus regarding the amount and composition of muscle synergies in stroke patients is difficult. The majority observed three to four muscle synergies. The decrease in amount of synergies can be explained by merging of synergies, often seen in hip/knee extensors with plantar flexors and hip/knee extensors with knee flexors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• Muscle synergy analyses are a powerful tool for assessing and classifying neurological deficits.

• A decreased amount of muscle synergies is related to impaired motor function.

• Differences in coordinated muscle activity was seen in the paretic and non-paretic side.

• Merging was often seen in hip/knee extensors with plantar flexors and hip/knee extensors with knee flexors.

Keywords:

• Cerebrovascular disorder
• EMG and muscle coordination
• gait
• locomotion
• muscle synergies
• stroke

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.