| Literature DB >> 33546067 |
Eun Kyu Ji1, Hae Hyun Wang, Sung June Jung, Kyoung Bo Lee, Joon Sung Kim, Leechan Jo, Bo Young Hong, Seong Hoon Lim.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although several types of occupational therapy for motor recovery of the upper limb in patients with chronic stroke have been investigated, most treatments are performed in a hospital or clinic setting. We investigated the effect of graded motor imagery (GMI) training, as a home exercise program, on upper limb motor recovery and activities of daily living (ADL) in patients with stroke.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33546067 PMCID: PMC7837923 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.889
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
Figure 2The application of graded motor imagery (GMI) training. A; implicit motor imagery, B; explicit motor imagery, C; mirror therapy.
General characteristics of the groups.
| Characteristic | Control group (n = 20) | GMI group (n = 17) | |
| Sex (male/female) | 13/7 | 9/8 | .25 |
| Affected side (right/left) | 13/7 | 9/8 | .25 |
| Stroke type (hemorrhage/infarction) | 9/11 | 7/10 | .41 |
| Area affected by stroke | |||
| Cerebral cortex | 8 | 9 | |
| Subcortex | 9 | 7 | |
| Cerebellum | 2 | 0 | |
| Mixed | 1 | 1 | |
| Age (years) | 61.75 ± 11.59 | 53.29 ± 17.09 | .08 |
| Months since stroke | 62.70 ± 64.24 | 46.29 ± 40.96 | .37 |
Functional recovery over time in the 2 control and GMI groups.
| Controls (n = 20) | GMI group (n = 17) | ||||||||
| Baseline | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | Baseline | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | ||||
| FMA-upper extremity | |||||||||
| Shoulder/Elbow/Forearm | 18.50 ± 8.95 | 20.40 ± 9.57 | 21.05 ± 9.90 | .005 | 20.41 ± 11.44 | 21.71 ± 11.08 | 22.59 ± 11.26 | .012 | .403 |
| Wrist | 3.80 ± 3.51 | 4.30 ± 3.75 | 4.50 ± 3.77 | .001 | 3.47 ± 3.46 | 3.88 ± 3.58 | 4.18 ± 3.54 | .008 | .889 |
| Hand | 5.00 ± 5.02 | 5.15 ± 5.18 | 5.35 ± 5.14 | .054 | 4.29 ± 4.93 | 4.65 ± 5.09 | 4.47 ± 4.98 | .152 | .359 |
| Total | 27.30 ± 16.48 | 29.85 ± 17.50 | 30.80 ± 17.60 | .001 | 28.18 ± 18.42 | 30.24 ± 18.32 | 31.24 ± 18.30 | .001 | .811 |
| MFT | |||||||||
| Arm motion | 9.00 ± 4.54 | 9.25 ± 4.55 | 9.35 ± 4.56 | .162 | 9.71 ± 4.98 | 10.29 ± 4.49 | 10.88 ± 4.25 | .020 | .042 |
| Grasping | 2.35 ± 2.18 | 2.65 ± 2.25 | 2.55 ± 2.16 | .006 | 2.47 ± 2.32 | 2.88 ± 2.11 | 2.82 ± 2.15 | .044 | .758 |
| Manipulation | 1.40 ± 1.87 | 2.00 ± 2.67 | 1.90 ± 2.49 | .083 | 1.06 ± 1.47 | 1.41 ± 2.21 | 1.71 ± 2.25 | .114 | .173 |
| Total | 39.53 ± 24.50 | 43.43 ± 27.39 | 43.12 ± 26.48 | .009 | 41.36 ± 26.36 | 45.59 ± 25.89 | 48.16 ± 25.17 | .016 | .162 |
| MBI | |||||||||
| Total | 62.25 ± 23.67 | 67.65 ± 22.83 | 68.55 ± 22.79 | .011 | 76.12 ± 18.84 | 80.76 ± 16.67 | 82.18 ± 15.13 | .002 | .882 |
Figure 3Functional recovery of the upper limb after MFT. The scores of the GMI group were significantly higher than those of the controls.