Stephen J Page1, Peter Levine, Anthony C Leonard. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine modified constraint-induced therapy (mCIT) feasibility and compare its efficacy to traditional rehabilitation (TR) in acute stroke patients exhibiting upper limb hemiparesis. METHOD: Before-after, multiple baseline, randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PATIENTS: Ten stroke patients <; 14 d poststroke and exhibiting upper limb hemiparesis and affected limb nonuse. INTERVENTIONS: Five patients were administered mCIT, consisting of structured therapy emphasizing more affected arm use in valued activities 3 d/week for 10 weeks and less affected arm restraint 5 d/week for 5 h. Five other patients received 1/2 sessions of traditional motor rehabilitation for the affected arm, which included affected limb manual dexterity exercises and stretching, as well as compensatory strategies with the unaffected limb. The TR regimens occurred 3 d/week for 10 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery (Fugl-Meyer), Action Research Arm Test (ARA), and Motor Activity Log (MAL). RESULTS: Before intervention, all patients exhibited stable motor deficits and more affected arm nonuse. After intervention, mCIT patients displayed increased affected arm use (+ 2.43 on the MAL amount of use scale), uniformly exhibited increases on the Fugl-Meyer and ARA (mean change scores = + 18.7 and + 21.7, respectively), and were able to again perform valued activities. TR patients exhibited nominal change in affected limb use (+ 0.07 on the MAL amount of use scale) and modest changes on the Fugl-Meyer and ARA (+ 4.4 and + 4.8, respectively). Fugl-Meyer and ARA changes were significant for the mCIT group only (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:mCIT is a promising regimen for improving more affected limb use and function in acute cerebrovascular accident. However, larger confirmatory studies need to be performed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine modified constraint-induced therapy (mCIT) feasibility and compare its efficacy to traditional rehabilitation (TR) in acute strokepatients exhibiting upper limb hemiparesis. METHOD: Before-after, multiple baseline, randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Rehabilitation hospital. PATIENTS: Ten strokepatients < 14 d poststroke and exhibiting upper limb hemiparesis and affected limb nonuse. INTERVENTIONS: Five patients were administered mCIT, consisting of structured therapy emphasizing more affected arm use in valued activities 3 d/week for 10 weeks and less affected arm restraint 5 d/week for 5 h. Five other patients received 1/2 sessions of traditional motor rehabilitation for the affected arm, which included affected limb manual dexterity exercises and stretching, as well as compensatory strategies with the unaffected limb. The TR regimens occurred 3 d/week for 10 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery (Fugl-Meyer), Action Research Arm Test (ARA), and Motor Activity Log (MAL). RESULTS: Before intervention, all patients exhibited stable motor deficits and more affected arm nonuse. After intervention, mCIT patients displayed increased affected arm use (+ 2.43 on the MAL amount of use scale), uniformly exhibited increases on the Fugl-Meyer and ARA (mean change scores = + 18.7 and + 21.7, respectively), and were able to again perform valued activities. TR patients exhibited nominal change in affected limb use (+ 0.07 on the MAL amount of use scale) and modest changes on the Fugl-Meyer and ARA (+ 4.4 and + 4.8, respectively). Fugl-Meyer and ARA changes were significant for the mCIT group only (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: mCIT is a promising regimen for improving more affected limb use and function in acute cerebrovascular accident. However, larger confirmatory studies need to be performed.
Authors: Steven L Wolf; Paul A Thompson; Carolee J Winstein; J Phillip Miller; Sarah R Blanton; Deborah S Nichols-Larsen; David M Morris; Gitendra Uswatte; Edward Taub; Kathye E Light; Lumy Sawaki Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A W Dromerick; C E Lang; R L Birkenmeier; J M Wagner; J P Miller; T O Videen; W J Powers; S L Wolf; D F Edwards Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 9.910