Investigation of the relationship between cognitive level and upper extremity functions in patients with chronic stroke

Abstract

Objective: Cognitive impairment and loss of upper limb functions are common after stroke and these two components can influence each other in anatomical and functional contexts. In this study, it was aimed to examine the relationship between cognitive level and upper extremity functions in patients with chronic stroke. Method: The study included 39 individuals diagnosed with stroke, in the chronic phase and with a mean age of 61.33±12.71 years, who were evaluated at Pamukkale University Hospital. Standardized Mini Mental Test (SMMT) and Stroop Test Basic Sciences Research Group (TBAG) Form were used to evaluate the cognitive levels of individuals. Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity Rating Scale, Frenchay Arm Test and Box-Block Test were used to evaluate upper extremity functions. Results: When the findings of the study were examined, statistically significant relationships were found between the Standardized Mini Mental Test and the Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity Rating Scale, Frenchay Arm Test and Box-Block Test (p<0.05). Between SMMT and ‘Flexor synergy’ and ‘Normal reflex activity’, which are sub-titles of Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity Rating Scale a statistically significant correlation was found (p<0.05). In addition, between the subtitles of the Stroop Test TBAG form ‘Chapter 3 Error’ and the subtitles of the Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity Evaluation Scale ‘Reflex Activity’; statistically significant relationships were also found between ‘Chapter 2 Correction’ and ‘Reflex activity’, ‘Extensor synergy’ and ‘Non-synergy movement’(p<0.05). No statistically significant correlation was found between the other parts of the Stroop Test TBAG Form and the scales assessing upper extremity functions (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results obtained from this study show that there is a relationship between the cognitive level and upper extremity functions in patients with chronic stroke. More efficiency can be obtained by taking ocnsider these two components as two components that may affect each other in the evaluation stages of patients and may help to create more personalized and successful programs.