Short-Term Effects of Intensive Inpatient Rehabilitation in Patients with Brain Tumor: a Single-Center Experience

Hyo Sun Lee; Seungmi Yeo; Yun-Hee Kim; Won Hyuk Chang

doi:10.12786/bn.2018.11.e12

Journal List > Brain Neurorehabil > v.11(2) > 1102587

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Yeo, Kim, and Chang: Short-Term Effects of Intensive Inpatient Rehabilitation in Patients with Brain Tumor: a Single-Center Experience

Original Article

Brain Neurorehabil 2018;11(2):e12.

Published online: 4 September 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12786/bn.2018.11.e12

Short-Term Effects of Intensive Inpatient Rehabilitation in Patients with Brain Tumor: a Single-Center Experience

Hyo Sun Lee¹, Seungmi Yeo¹, Yun-Hee Kim^1,², Won Hyuk Chang^1,

¹Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Departments of Health Science and Technology, and Medical Device Management & Research, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology (SAIHST), Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Won Hyuk Chang Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea. E-mail: wh.chang@samsung.com

Received 13 March 2018 Accepted 29 June 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the short-term effects of intensive inpatient rehabilitation in patients with brain tumor. Retrospective data from September 2015 to May 2017 was obtained in 65 patients with brain tumor who were transferred to the department of physical and rehabilitation medicine for comprehensive intensive inpatient rehabilitation. For comparison, data from 140 patients with subacute stroke were also obtained. To measure functional status, we collected data from the following tests: the Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index, the Motricity Index, the Korean Mini-Mental Status Examination, and the Functional Ambulatory Category. Functional efficiency of each assessment was calculated as the gain divided by the inpatient rehabilitation length of stay. Independent t-test was performed to compare functional outcomes between the brain tumor group and the subacute stroke group. There were significant improvements in all functional assessments in both the brain tumor group and the subacute stroke group (p < 0.05). In addition, there was no significant difference in the functional gain and efficiency in all assessments between the 2 groups. The results of the present study revealed that intensive inpatient rehabilitation could have potential to improve the functional levels in patients with brain tumor.

Keywords: Rehabilitation, Brain Neoplasms, Functional Outcome, Independency

References

1. Bauchet L, Rigau V, Mathieu-Daudé H, Figarella-Branger D, Hugues D, Palusseau L, Bauchet F, Fabbro M, Campello C, Capelle L, Durand A, Trétarre B, Frappaz D, Henin D, Menei P, Honnorat J, Segnarbieux F. French brain tumor data bank: methodology and first results on 10,000 cases. J Neurooncol. 2007; 84:189–199.

2. Shahpar S, Mhatre PV, Huang ME. Update on brain tumors: new developments in neuro-oncologic diagnosis and treatment, and impact on rehabilitation strategies. PM R. 2016; 8:678–689.

3. Lee CH, Jung KW, Yoo H, Park S, Lee SH. Epidemiology of primary brain and central nervous system tumors in Korea. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2010; 48:145–152.

4. Jung KW, Ha J, Lee SH, Won YJ, Yoo H. An updated nationwide epidemiology of primary brain tumors in republic of Korea. Brain Tumor Res Treat. 2013; 1:16–23.

5. Schouten LJ, Rutten J, Huveneers HA, Twijnstra A. Incidence of brain metastases in a cohort of patients with carcinoma of the breast, colon, kidney, and lung and melanoma. Cancer. 2002; 94:2698–2705.

6. Huang ME, Sliwa JA. Inpatient rehabilitation of patients with cancer: efficacy and treatment considerations. PM R. 2011; 3:746–757.

7. Mix JM, Granger CV, LaMonte MJ, Niewczyk P, DiVita MA, Goldstein R, Yates JW, Freudenheim JL. Characterization of cancer patients in inpatient rehabilitation facilities: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98:971–980.

8. Marciniak CM, Sliwa JA, Heinemann AW, Semik PE. Functional outcomes of persons with brain tumors after inpatient rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82:457–463.

9. Huang ME, Cifu DX, Keyser-Marcus L. Functional outcomes in patients with brain tumor after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison with traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 79:327–335.

10. Lindsay P, Bayley M, McDonald A, Graham ID, Warner G, Phillips S. Toward a more effective approach to stroke: Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care. CMAJ. 2008; 178:1418–1425.

11. Kim DY, Kim YH, Lee J, Chang WH, Kim MW, Pyun SB, Yoo WK, Ohn SH, Park KD, Oh BM, Lim SH, Jung KJ, Ryu BJ, Im S, Jee SJ, Seo HG, Rah UW, Park JH, Sohn MK, Chun MH, Shin HS, Lee SJ, Lee YS, Park SW, Park YG, Paik NJ, Lee SG, Lee JK, Koh SE, Kim DK, Park GY, Shin YI, Ko MH, Kim YW, Yoo SD, Kim EJ, Oh MK, Chang JH, Jung SH, Kim TW, Kim WS, Kim DH, Park TH, Lee KS, Hwang BY, Song YJ. Clinical practice guideline for stroke rehabilitation in Korea 2016. Brain Neurorehabil. 2017; 10:e11.

12. Toschke AM, Tilling K, Cox AM, Rudd AG, Heuschmann PU, Wolfe CD. Patient-specific recovery patterns over time measured by dependence in activities of daily living after stroke and post-stroke care: the South London Stroke Register (SLSR). Eur J Neurol. 2010; 17:219–225.

13. National Stroke Foundation (AU). Clinical guidelines for stroke management 2010. Melbourne: National Stroke Foundation;2010.

14. Canadian Stroke Network. Canadian best practice recommendations for stroke care. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Stroke Network;2010.

15. Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group. VA/DOD clinical practice guideline for the management of stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47:1–43.

16. Jung HY, Park BK, Shin HS, Kang YK, Pyun SB, Paik NJ, Kim SH, Kim TH, Han TR. Development of the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI): multi-center study for subjects with stroke. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2007; 31:283–297.

17. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1990; 53:576–579.

18. Kang Y, Na DL, Hahn S. A validity study on the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) in dementia patients. J Korean Neurol Assoc. 1997; 15:300–308.

19. Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal S, Jutai J, Speechley M. Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: executive summary, 12th edition. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009; 16:463–488.

20. Koh GC, Chen CH, Petrella R, Thind A. Rehabilitation impact indices and their independent predictors: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013; 3:e003483.

21. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011; 377:1693–1702.

22. Huang ME, Cifu DX, Keyser-Marcus L. Functional outcome after brain tumor and acute stroke: a comparative analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79:1386–1390.

23. Schnipper LE, Smith TJ, Raghavan D, Blayney DW, Ganz PA, Mulvey TM, Wollins DS. American Society of Clinical Oncology identifies five key opportunities to improve care and reduce costs: the top five list for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30:1715–1724.

24. Ohashi R, Takahashi K, Miura K, Ishiwata T, Sakuraba S, Fukuchi Y. Prognostic factors in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer–an analysis of long-term survival patients. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2006; 33:1595–1602.

25. Tang V, Rathbone M, Park Dorsay J, Jiang S, Harvey D. Rehabilitation in primary and metastatic brain tumours: impact of functional outcomes on survival. J Neurol. 2008; 255:820–827.

26. Tabouret E, Chinot O, Metellus P, Tallet A, Viens P, Gonçalves A. Recent trends in epidemiology of brain metastases: an overview. Anticancer Res. 2012; 32:4655–4662.

Fig. 1.

Functional gain and efficiency of intensive inpatient rehabilitation in brain tumor and stroke groups. K-MBI, Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index; MI, Motricity Index; K-MMSE, Korean Mini-Mental Status Examination; FAC, Functional Ambulatory Category.

Table 1.

General characteristics of patients

Characteristics	Brain tumor group				Stroke group (n = 140)
Characteristics	Total (n = 65)	Primary brain tumor (n = 48)	Metastatic brain tumor (n = 10)	Hematologic brain tumor (n = 7)	Stroke group (n = 140)
Age Sex (male:female)	56.8 ± 15.437:29	54.3 ± 15.5 23:26	67.0 ± 9.1 7:3	59.7 ± 17.5 7:0	63.8 ± 15.3 80:60
Sex (male:female)	37:29	23:26	7:3	7:0	80:60
Surgery	51 (78.5)	43 (89.6)	8 (80.0)	0 (0.0)	–
Chemotherapy	24 (3.9)	14 (29.2)	3 (30.0)	7 (100.0)	–
Radiation	23 (35.4)	15 (31.3)	5 (50.0)	3 (42.9)	–
LOS (day)	18.5 ± 6.7	19.3 ± 7.1	17.5 ± 5.7	14.1 ± 3.9	–
Stroke type (infarct:hemorrhage)	–	–	–	–	97:43
Stroke lesion (supratentorial:intratentorial)	–	–	–	–	105:35
Lesion side (right:left:bilateral)	–	–	–	–	50:66:24
Duration of stroke (day)	–	–	–	–	14.8 ± 10.6

Values are presented as ratio, number of patients (%), or mean ± standard deviation.

LOS, length of stay.

Table 2.

Change of functional status after intensive inpatient rehabilitation

Tests		Brain tumor group (n = 65)	Stroke group (n = 140)	p value^†
K-MBI	Admission	23.6 ± 21.0	27.7 ± 25,4	0.226
K-MBI	Discharge	36.1 ± 27.0^*	42.1 ± 28.6^*	0.183
MI	Admission	64.9 ± 25.1	61.5 ± 29.6	0.423
MI	Discharge	70.4 ± 22.1^*	66.6 ± 28.1^*	0.305
K-MMSE	Admission	19.3 ± 9.0	18.0 ± 10.3	0.351
K-MMSE	Discharge	21.2 ± 9.0^*	19.3 ± 9.0^*	0.864
FAC	Admission	1.3 ± 1.2	1.3 ± 1.2	0.842
FAC	Discharge	2.2 ± 1.4^*	2.5 ± 1.4^*	0.174

K-MBI, Korean version of the Modified Barthel index; MI, Motricity Index; K-MMSE, Korean Mini-Mental Status Examination; FAC, Functional Ambulatory Category.

^* p < 0.05, compared with admission;

^† comparison between the brain tumor group and the subacute stroke group.

Table 3.

Change of functional status after intensive inpatient rehabilitation

Tests		Primary brain tumor (n = 48)	Metastatic brain tumor (n = 10)	Hematologic brain tumor (n = 7)	p value^†
K-MBI	Admission	22.1 ± 21.6	27.9 ± 22.8	26.0 ± 14.0	0.636
	Discharge	34.6 ± 27.5^*	37.7 ± 26.6^*	44.2 ± 26.7^*	0.711
	Gain	14.0 ± 14.1	9.8 ± 7.8	18.2 ± 15.8	0.471
	Efficiency	0.7556 ± 0.7628	0.5032 ± 0.3902	1.1847 ± 0.7767	0.192
MI	Admission	63.6 ± 27.0	66.8 ± 20.5	71.0 ± 17.7	0.751
	Discharge	69.9 ± 23.4^*	72.2 ± 20.1^*	71.0 ± 17.7	0.955
	Gain	6.3 ± 10.0	5.4 ± 7.2	0.0 ± 0.0	0.247
	Efficiency	0.2917 ± 0.4713	0.2967 ± 0.4713	0.0000 ± 0.0000	0.253
K-MMSE	Admission	19.9 ± 9.5	18.7 ± 9.4	16.7 ± 2.3	0.672
	Discharge	21.3 ± 9.5^*	21.3 ± 9.6^*	20.3 ± 4.1^*	0.962
	Gain	2.1 ± 5.2	2.6 ± 3.2	3.6 ± 3.9	0.745
	Efficiency	0.1032 ± 0.2577	0.1539 ± 0.2191	0.2074 ± 0.2483	0.547
FAC	Admission	1.2 ± 1.1	1.2 ± 1.5	1.4 ± 1.0	0.916
	Discharge	2.1 ± 1.3^*	2.5 ± 1.6^*	2.3 ± 1.3^*	0.754
	Gain	0.9 ± 0.7	1.3 ± 1.4	0.9 ± 0.7	0.360
	Efficiency	0.0459 ± 0.0418	0.0655 ± 0.0680	0.0643 ± 0.0673	0.394

K-MBI, Korean version of the Modified Barthel index; MI, Motricity Index; K-MMSE, Korean Mini-Mental Status Examination; FAC, Functional Ambulatory Category.

^* p < 0.05, compared with admission;

^† comparison among 3 groups.

TOOLS

Similar articles