Objective:To observe the effect of mirror visual feedback (MVF) on the motor functioning and balance of stroke survivors, and to observe any morphological and structural changes in the tibialis anterior (TA) after MVF training.Methods:Thirty-six stroke survivors were divided into a mirror group ( n=18) and a control group ( n=18). Both groups received conventional drugs and routine rehabilitation treatment, while the mirror group was additionally provided with MVF training 5 days a week for 4 weeks. Before and after the treatment, both groups were evaluated using the Fugl-Meyer assessment for the lower extremities (FMA-LE) and the Berg balance scale (BBS). Moreover, the pennation angle (PA), the muscle thickness (MT) and the fascicle length (FL) of the tibialis anterior were measured at rest and in maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MVC) using ultrasonic imaging. Results:After the treatment the average PA of the affected side at rest and the MVC of the TA increased significantly in both groups compared with before the treatment, with the average improvement in the mirror group significantly greater than in the control group. The average TA thickness at rest and the MVC were both significantly greater in the mirror group than among the control group after the treatment. The average FMA-LE and BBS scores of both groups had improved significantly, but the mirror group′s average scores were significantly better than those of the control group.Conclusion:MVF can improve the motor function and balance ability of stroke survivors. Moreover, ultrasound can be used to evaluate the changes of TA morphology in such patients quantitatively, providing an objective foundation for tracking clinical efficacy.

Objective To observe the effects of mirror therapy (MT) combined with functional electrical stimulation (FES) on motor of lower extremities, walking ability and activities of daily living for subacute stroke patients. Methods From July, 2016 to December, 2017, 38 subacute stroke patients were randomly divided into treatment group (n=20) and control group (n=18). All the patients received routine rehabilitation. The control group accepted FES, and the treatment group accepted FES and MT, for eight weeks. They were assessed with Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Extremities (FMA-LE), Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC) and modified Barthel Index (MBI) before and after treatment. Results Both groups improved in the scores of FMA-LE and MBI, and grade of FAC after treatment (Z>3.002, t>7.985, P<0.01), and the scores of FMA-LE improved more in the treatment group than in the control group (Z=-2.037, P<0.05). There was no difference between two groups in the scores of MBI and grade of FAC (t=-1.044, Z=-1.287, P>0.05). Conclusion The addition of MT on FES may further improve the lower extremities motor function, but not enough to improve their walking and activities of daily living in subacute stroke patients.