| Literature DB >> 32103968 |
Dorcas Bc Gandhi1,2, Albert Sterba3, Himani Khatter2, Jeyaraj D Pandian2.
Abstract
In contrast to varied therapy approaches, mirror therapy (MT) can be used even in completely plegic stroke survivors, as it uses visual stimuli for producing a desired response in the affected limb. MT has been studied to have effects not just on motor impairments but also on sensations, visuospatial neglect, and pain after stroke. This paper attempts to systematically review and present the current perspectives on mirror therapy and its application in stroke rehabilitation, and dosage, feasibility and acceptability in stroke rehabilitation. An electronic database search across Google, PubMed, Web of Science, etc., generated 3871 results. After screening them based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 28 studies in this review. The data collected were divided on the basis of application in stroke rehabilitation, modes of intervention delivery, and types of control and outcome assessment. We found that most studies intervened for upper limb motor impairments post stroke. Studies were equally distributed between intervention in chronic and acute phases post stroke with therapy durations lasting between 1 and 8 weeks. MT showed definitive motor and sensory improvements although the extent of improvements in sensory impairments and hemineglect is limited. MT proves to be an effective and feasible approach to rehabilitate post-stroke survivors in the acute, sub-acute, and chronic phases of stroke, although its long-term effects and impact on activities of daily living need to be analysed extensively.Entities:
Keywords: hemineglect; mirror therapy; motor; pain; rehabilitation; sensory; stroke; unilateral neglect
Year: 2020 PMID: 32103968 PMCID: PMC7012218 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S206883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag ISSN: 1176-6336 Impact factor: 2.423
Figure 1PRISMA flow chart.
Summary of Included Studies
| First Author/Year | Phase | Intervention Target | Duration of Therapy (Weeks) | Mode of MT | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harmsen, 2015 | Chronic | UL motor | 1 session | Action-observation, u/l | 37 |
| Lin, 2014 | Chronic | UL motor, ambulation, ADL | 4 | MB, b/l | 29 |
| Amasyalı, 2016 | Chronic | Hand motor | 3 | MF, u/l | 17 |
| Gurbuz, 2016 | Sub-acute | UL motor | 4 | MF, u/l | 31 |
| Mohan, 2013 | Acute | LL motor, balance | 2 | MF | 22 |
| Xu, 2017 | Sub-acute | LL, ambulation, spasticity | 4 | MF | 46 |
| Vural, 2015 | Chronic | CRPS, UL motor, ADL, spasticity | 4 | MR, b/l | 30 |
| Wu, 2013 | Chronic | UL motor and sensory | 4 | MF, b/l | 23 |
| Rodrigues, 2015 | Chronic | UL motor | 4 | MB, b/l | 16 |
| Arya, 2018 | Chronic | UL sensory | 6 | MF, b/l | 31 |
| Samuelkamaleshkumar, 2014 | Sub-acute | Wrist and hand motor | 3 | MB, b/l | 20 |
| Cristina, 2015 | Sub-acute | UL motor | 6 | MF, b/l | 15 |
| Thieme, 2012 | Sub-acute | UL motor, ADLS, QOL, visuospatial neglect | 5 | MF, b/l | 60 |
| Colomer, 2016 | Chronic | UL motor and sensory | 8 | MB, b/l | 31 |
| Michielsen, 2011 | Chronic | UL motor, pain, QOL | 6 | MF, b/l | 40 |
| Pandian, 2014 | Acute | Unilateral neglect | 4 | MB, b/l | 47 |
| Antoniotti, 2019 | Acute | UL motor | 4 | MF, u/l | 35 |
| Tyson, 2015 | Acute | UL and LL, motor and sensory | 1 | MF | 85 |
| Chan, 2018 | Acute | UL motor | 4 | MF, b/l | 35 |
| Arya, 2015 | Chronic | UL motor | 8 | MB, u/l | 33 |
| Park, 2015 | Chronic | UL motor, ADL | 4 | MF, u/l | 30 |
| Radajewska, 2013 | Sub-acute | UL and hand motor, ADL | 3 | MF, b/l | 60 |
| Ji, 2015 | Sub-acute | Gait | 4 | MF, u/l | 34 |
| Park, 2015 | Chronic | UL motor, ADL | 6 | MF, u/l | 30 |
| Lee, 2012 | Acute and sub-acute | UL motor | 4 | MB, b/l | 26 |
| Invernizzi, 2013 | Sub-acute | UL motor, ADL | 4 | MF, u/l | 26 |
| In, 2016 | Chronic | Balance, gait | 4 | MB, VRRT | 25 |
| Yang, 2015 | Sub-acute | Pusher’s syndrome | 3 | MF | 12 |
Abbreviations: UL, Upper Limb; u/l, Unilateral; ADL, Activities of Daily Living, MB, Mirror Box; b/l, bilateral; MF, Mirror Frame; LL, Lower Limb; CRPS, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome; QOL, Quality of Life; VRRT, Virtual Reality Reflection Therapy.
Types of Outcome Measures
| Category | Scales Used | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Impairment | Activity Limitation | Participation Restriction | |
| Motor: upper and lower extremity | FMA | WMFT | BI |
| Sensory | FMA | NA | NA |
| Unilateral neglect | SCT | NA | NA |
| Balance | Postural sway | BBS | FRT |
| Others | Scale for Contraversive Pushing | Motion analysis device | SIS |
Abbreviations: FMA, Fugl Meyer Assessment; PROM, Passive Range Of Motion; MCSI, Modified Composite Spasticity Index; MSS, Motor Status Score; MFT, Manual Function Test; ULAM, Upper Limb Activity Monitor; BI, Barthel Index; FIM, Functional Independence Measure; RNSA, Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment; NSA, Nottingham Sensory Assessment; RASP, Rivermead Assessment Of Sensory Perception; TDT, Tactile Discrimination Test; SMT, Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; SCT, Star Cancellation Test; LBT, Line Bisection Test; PIT, Picture Identification Task; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; BBA, Brunel Balance Assessment; FRT, Functional Reach Test; TUG, Timed Up and Go Test; FAC, Functional Ambulation Categories; FAT, Frenchay Arm Test; MAL, Motor Activity Log; mRS, Modified Rankin Score; EQ-5D, EuroQOL-5 Domains; RFI, Repty Functional Index.
Figure 2The risk of bias scored on the Cochrane tool.