Bobath or Motor Relearning Programme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether two different physiotherapy regimes caused any differences in outcome in rehabilitation after acute stroke.

Design: A double-blind study of patients with acute first-ever stroke. Sixty-one patients were consecutively included, block randomized into two groups, and stratified according to gender and hemiplegic site. Group 1 (33 patients) and group 2 (28 patients) had physiotherapy according to Motor Relearning Programme (MRP) and Bobath, respectively. The supplemental treatment did not differ in the two groups.

Main outcome measures: The Motor Assessment Scale (MAS), the Sødring Motor Evaluation Scale (SMES), the Barthel ADL Index and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) were used. The following parameters were also registered: length of stay in the hospital, use of assistive devices for mobility, and the patient's accommodation after discharge from the hospital.

Results: Patients treated according to MRP stayed fewer days in hospital than those treated according to Bobath (mean 21 days versus 34 days, p = 0.008). Both groups improved in MAS and SMES, but the improvement in motor function was significantly better in the MRP group. The two groups improved in Barthel ADL Index without significant differences between the groups. However, women treated by MRP improved more in ADL than women treated by Bobath. There were no differences between the groups in the life quality test (NHP), use of assistive devices or accommodation after discharge from the hospital.

Conclusion: The present study indicates that physiotherapy treatment using the MRP is preferable to that using the Bobath programme in the acute rehabilitation of stroke patients.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Langhorne P , Wagenaar R , Partridge C . Physiotherapy after stroke: more is better? Physiother Res Int 1996; 1: 75–88.

Ernst E . A review of stroke rehabilitation and physiotherapy. Stroke 1990; 21: 1081–1085.

Wagenaar RC , Meijer OG . Effects of stroke rehabilitation. A critical review of the literature. J Rehabil Sci 1991; 4: 61–73.

Johansson B . Rehabilitation after stroke. Lækartidningen 1993; 90: 2600–2602.

Horak F . Assumptions underlying motor control for neurological rehabilitation. In: Lister MJ ed. Contemporary management of motor control problems. Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy, 1991: 11–27.

WHO . International Classification of Impairment, Disabilities and Handicaps. A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: WHO, 1980.

Bobath B . Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment. London: William Heinemann, 1990: 1–29, 31–157.

Carr JH . Shepherd RB . A motor relearning programme. London: William Heinemann, 1987: 1–25.

Indreavik B , Bakke F , Solberg F , Rokseth R , Haaheim LL , Holme I . Benefit of a stroke unit: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Stroke 1991; 22: 1026–1031.

10.

Carr JH , Shepherd RB , Nordholm L , Lynne D . Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985; 65: 175–178.

11.

Poole JL , Whitney SL . Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69: 195–197.

12.

Malouin F , Pichard L , Bonneau C , Durand A , Corriveau D . Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: a comparison of the Fugl-Meyer assessment and the motor assessment scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 1206–1212.

13.

Sødring KM , Bautz-Holter E , Ljunggren AE , Wyller TB . Description and validation of a test of motor function and activities in stroke patients. The Sødring motor evaluation of stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 211–217.

14.

Sødring KM . The Sødring motor evaluation of stroke patients. Manual. Clinic for Geriatrics and Rehabilitation Medicine, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, 1994.

15.

Wyller TB , Sødring KM , Sveen U , Ljunggren AE , Bautz-Holter E . Predictive validity of the Sødring Motor Evaluation of Stroke Patients (SMES). Scand J Rehabil Med 1996; 28: 211–216.

16.

Dejong G , Branch LG . Predicting the stroke patient's ability to live independently. Stroke 1982; 13: 648–655.

17.

Wylie CM . Measuring and results of rehabilitation of patients with stroke. Public Health Rep 1967; 82: 893–898.

18.

Wade DT , Skilbeck CE , Hewer RL . Predicting Barthel ADL score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983; 64: 24–28.

19.

Wiklund I , Romanus B . A comparison of quality of life before and after arthroplasty in patients with arthrosis of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg 1991; 73A: 765–769.

20.

Hunt SM , MCKenna SP , MCEwan J , Williams Papp E . The NHP subjective health status and medical consultation. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15A: 221–229.

21.

Brazier J , Harper, Jones NMB , O'Cathain A , Thomas KJ , Usherwood T , Westlake L . Validating a new outcome measure of primary health. SF-36 a survey questionaire. BMJ 1992; 305: 160–164.

22.

Dickstein R , Hochermann S , Pillar T , Shaham R . Stroke rehabilitation. Three exercise therapy approaches. Phys Ther 1986; 66: 1233–1238.

23.

Brittain KR , Peet SM , Castleden CM . Stroke and incontinence. Stroke 1998; 29: 524–528.

24.

Wikander B , Ekelund P , Milsom I . An evaluation of multidisciplinary intervention governed by functional independence measure (FIM) in incontinent stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 1998; 30: 15–21.

25.

Wyller Bruun T , Kirkevold M . How does a cerebral stroke affect quality of life? In: Consequences of cerebral stroke. Oslo: University of Oslo, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Ullevaal Hospital, 1997: 1–12.

26.

Laukkanen P , Kauppinen M , Era P , Heikkinen E . Factors related to coping with physical and instrumental activities of daily living among people born in 1904–1923. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1993; 8: 287–296.

27.

Wyller Bruun T , Sødring KM , Sveen U , Ljunggren AE , Bautz-Holter E . Are there any gender differences in functional outcome after stroke? Clin Rehabil 1997; 11: 171–177.