Objective: To study the effects of augmented exercise therapy time for arm rehabilitation as either Bobath therapy or the impairment-oriented training (Arm BASIS training) in stroke patients with arm severe paresis.
Design: Single blind, multicentre randomized control trial.
Setting: Three inpatient neurorehabilitation centres.
Interventions: Random assignment to three group: (A) no augmented exercise therapy time, (B) augmented exercise therapy time as Bobath therapy and (C) augmented exercise therapy time as Arm BASIS training.
Main measures: Main outcome measure: Fugl-Meyer arm motor score. Secondary measure: Action Research Arm Test (ARA). Ancillary measures: Fugl-Meyer arm sensation and joint motion/pain scores and the Ashworth Scale (elbow flexors).
Results: An overall effect of augmented exercise therapy time on Fugl-Meyer scores after four weeks was not corroborated (mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of change scores: no augmented exercise therapy time (n = 20) 8.8, 5.2–12.3; augmented exercise therapy time (n = 40) 9.9, 6.8-13.9; p = 0.2657). The group who received the augmented exercise therapy time as Arm BASIS training (n = 20) had, however, higher gains than the group receiving the augmented exercise therapy time as Bobath therapy (n = 20) (mean and 95% CI of change scores: Bobath 7.2, 2.6-11.8; BASIS 12.6, 8.4 - 16.8; p = 0.0432). Passive joint motion/pain deteriorated less in the group who received BASIS training (mean and 95% CI of change scores: Bobath -3.2, -5.2 to -1.1; BASIS 0.1, -1.8-2.0; p = 0.0090). ARA, Fugl-Meyer arm sensation, and Ashworth Scale scores were not differentially affected.
Conclusions: The augmented exercise therapy time as Arm BASIS training enhanced selective motor control. Type of training was more relevant for recovery of motor control than therapeutic time spent.
References
1.
1 Hankey GJ, Jamrozik K, Broadhurst RJ, Forbes S, Anderson CS. Long-term disability after first-ever stroke and related prognostic factors in the Perth community stroke study, 1989-1900. Stroke2002; 33: 1034-1040.
2.
2 Meijer R, Ihnenfeldt DS, de Groot IJM, van Limbeek J, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ. Prognostic factors for ambulation and activities of daily living in the subacute phase after stroke. A systematic review. Clin Rehabil2003; 17: 119-129.
3.
3 Mercier L, Audet T, Herbert R, Rochette A, Dubois MF. Impact of motor, cognitive, and perceptual disorders on the ability to perform activities of daily living after stroke. Stroke2001; 32: 2602-2608.
4.
4 Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Bourbonnais D, Richards CL, Rochette A, Bravo G. Arm and leg impairments and disabilities after stroke rehabilitation: relation to handicap. Clin Rehabil2003; 17: 666-673.
5.
5 Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke2004; 35: 2529-2539.
6.
6 van der Lee JH, Snels IAK, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Wagenaar RC, Bouter LM. Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Clin Rehabil2001; 15:20-31.
7.
7 Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: The Copenhagen Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75: 394-398.
8.
8 Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R, Wood VA, Skilbeck CE, Ismail HM. The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. J Neural Neurosurg Psychiatry1983; 46: 521-524.
9.
9 Platz T. Impairment-oriented Training (IOT) - scientific concept and evidence-based treatment strategies. Restorative Neurol Neurosci2004; 22: 301-315.
10.
10 Platz T, Winter T, Müller N, Pinkowski C, Eickhof C, Mauritz K-H. Arm ability training for stroke and traumatic brain injury patients with mild arm paresis. A single-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 961-968.
11.
11 Eickhof C. Wiederherstellung der Innervationsfähigkeit für Zielmotorik durch ein systematisches repetitives Basistraining. In: Grundlagen der Therapie bei erworbenen Lä hmungen. München: Pflaum, 2001: 160-213.
12.
12 Lennon S. The Bobath concept: a critical review of the theoretical assumptions that guide physiotherapy practice in stroke rehabilitation. Phys Ther Rev1996, 1:35-45.
13.
13 Fugl-Meyer AR, Jäskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. Scand J Rehabil Med1975; 7:13-31.
14.
14 Adams RJ, Mador K.Sethi KD, Grotta JC, Thompson DS. Graded neurological scale for use in acute hemispheric stroke treatment protocols. Stroke1987; 18: 665-669.
15.
15 Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C. Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet1991; 337: 1521-1526.
16.
16 Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol1989; 42: 703-709.
17.
17 Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther1993; 73: 447-454.
18.
18 Filiatrault J, Arsenault AB, Dutil E, Bourbonnais D. Motor function and activities of daily living assessments: a study of three tests for persons with hemiplegia. Am J Occup Ther1991; 45: 806-810.
19.
19 Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res1981; 4: 483-492.
20.
20 Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim I-H, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardised guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multi-centre study. Clin Rehabil2005; 19: 404-411.
21.
21 Ashworth B. Preliminary trial of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner1964, 192: 540-542.
22.
22 Unnebrink K, Windeler J. Intention-to-treat: methods for dealing with missing values in clinical trials of progressively deteriorating diseases. Stat Med2001; 20: 3931-3946.
23.
23 Feys HM, De Weerdt WJ, Selz BE et al. Effect of a therapeutic intervention for the hemiplegic upper limb in the acute phase after stroke: a single-blind, randomised, controlled multicenter trial. Stroke1998; 29: 785-792.
24.
24 Lincoln NB, Parry RH, Vass CD. Randomised, controlled trial to evaluate increased intensity of physiotherapy treatment of arm function after stroke. Stroke1999; 30: 573-579.
25.
25 Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der LM. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 952-959.
26.
26 Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Edelstein OL, Diels C, Aisen M. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology2000; 54: 1938-1944.
27.
27 Faghri PD, Rodgers MM, Glaser RM, Bors JG, Ho C, Akuthota P. The effects of functional electrical stimulation on shoulder subluxation, arm function recovery, and shoulder pain in hemiplegic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75:73-79.
28.
28 Chae J, Bethoux F, Bohine T, Dobos L, Davis T, Friedl A. Neuromuscular stimulation for upper extremity motor and functional recovery in acute hemiplegia. Stroke1998; 29: 975-979.
29.
29 Platz T. Evidenzbasierte Arm-Rehabilitation - eine systematische Literaturübersicht. Nervenarzt2003; 74: 841-849.
