Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: Task-related training versus progressive resistive exercise

被引:136
作者
Thielman, GT
Dean, CM
Gentile, AM
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Dept Biobehav Sci, Coll Teachers, New York, NY 10027 USA
[2] Univ Sydney, Fac Hlth Sci, Sch Physiotherapy, Sydney, NSW, Australia
来源
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION | 2004年 / 85卷 / 10期
关键词
arm; hemiplegia; recovery of function; rehabilitation;
D O I
10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.028
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of 2 rehabilitative approaches for improving paretic limb reaching by chronic stroke subjects. Design: Pre- and posttest reaching to targets ipsilateral, midline, and contralateral to the impaired side. Setting: Training in subjects' homes; testing in a laboratory setting. Participants: Twelve poststroke volunteers were matched using the Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) and then were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 training conditions. Subjects were subsequently categorized as at a high or low functional level, using the reaching pretest movement time scores. Interventions: Training (trunk unrestrained) using the paretic limb was 4 weeks (12 sessions). Task-related training (TRT) involved reaching to objects placed across the work-space. Progressive resistive exercise (PRE) involved whole-arm pulling against resistive therapeutic tubing in planes and distances similar to that in TRT. Main Outcome Measures: Kinematic analysis of arm trajectory and trunk motion using the Peak Performance System, as well as scores on the MAS and the Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA). Results: For low-level groups, TRT resulted in increased substitutive trunk use at the target ipsilateral to the moving arm, and for midline and contralateral targets after PRE. Only low-level, TRT subjects straightened hand paths, which suggested better coordination of elbow-shoulder motion, and improved on the RMA. High-level subjects decreased trunk use at ipsilateral target after PRE, which was not observed after TRT. No significant differences between training conditions were found for other kinematic variables. Conclusions: Training benefits appear to depend on initial level of functioning. Although compensatory trunk use was evident, low-level subjects seemed to benefit most from TRT. High-level subjects, whose kinematics showed fairly normal movement organization, demonstrated less compensatory movement after PRE. (C) 2004 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
引用
收藏
页码:1613 / 1618
页数:6
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects
    Archambault, P
    Pigeon, P
    Feldman, AG
    Levin, MF
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 1999, 126 (01) : 55 - 67
  • [2] INVESTIGATION OF A NEW MOTOR-ASSESSMENT SCALE FOR STROKE PATIENTS
    CARR, JH
    SHEPHERD, RB
    NORDHOLM, L
    LYNNE, D
    [J]. PHYSICAL THERAPY, 1985, 65 (02): : 175 - 180
  • [3] Castiello U, 1994, Adv in Psychol, VVolume 105, P239
  • [4] Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke
    Cirstea, MC
    Levin, MF
    [J]. BRAIN, 2000, 123 : 940 - 953
  • [5] Task-related circuit training improves performance of locomotor tasks in chronic stroke: A randomized, controlled pilot trial
    Dean, CM
    Richards, CL
    Malouin, F
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2000, 81 (04): : 409 - 417
  • [6] Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke - A randomized controlled trial
    Dean, CM
    Shepherd, RB
    [J]. STROKE, 1997, 28 (04) : 722 - 728
  • [7] Gentile A. M., 2000, Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy, V2nd ed., P111
  • [8] AGONIST AND ANTAGONIST ACTIVITY DURING VOLUNTARY UPPER-LIMB MOVEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH STROKE
    GOWLAND, C
    DEBRUIN, H
    BASMAJIAN, JV
    PLEWS, N
    BURCEA, I
    [J]. PHYSICAL THERAPY, 1992, 72 (09): : 624 - 633
  • [9] HOWELL DC, 2002, STAT METHODS PSYCHOL, P351
  • [10] Judd C.M., 2011, Data analysis: A model comparison approach