Objective: (1) To evaluate constraint-induced movement therapy for chronic stroke patients modified into group practice to limit the demand on therapist resources. (2) To explore whether extended mitt use alone may enhance outcome.
Design: A combined case-control and randomized controlled study with pre- and post-treatment measures by blinded observers.
Setting: A university hospital rehabilitation department.
Participants: Sixteen stroke patients (nine men and seven women; mean age 56.7 years; on average 28.9 months post stroke, five of whom were 6-9 months post stroke) with moderate motor impairments in the contralateral upper limb.
Intervention: Constraint-induced therapy (mitt on the less affected hand 90% of waking hours for 12 days) with 2-3 patients per therapist and 6 h of group training per day. After the training period, the patients were randomized either to using the mitt at home every other day for two-week periods for another three months (in total 21 days) or to no further treatment.
Outcome measures: Modified Motor Assessment Scale, Sollerman Hand Function Test, Two-Point Discrimination test and Motor Activity Log.
Results: The mean motor performance improved significantly after two weeks of constraint-induced group therapy on Motor Assessment Scale (1.44 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.59-2.28) points; P = 0.003) and on Sollerman Hand Function Test (3.81 (95% CI 0.26-7.36) points; P = 0.037) but showed no sensory change in the Two-Point Discrimination Test (P = 0.283). The median difference in self-reported motor ability (Motor Activity Log) also improved (P B=0.001). However, no additional effect was seen from wearing a mitt for another three months.
Conclusion: Constraint-induced group therapy, allowing several patients per therapist, seems to be a feasible alternative to improve upper limb motor function. The restraint alone, extended in time, did not enhance the treatment effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Heller A, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Langton-Hewer R, Ward E. Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1987; 50: 714-719.
2.
2 Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R, Wood VA, Skilbeck CE, Ismail HM. The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1983; 46: 521-524.
3.
3 Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJH. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper extremity limb. Stroke2003; 34: 2181-2186.
4.
4 Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. ArchPhys Med Rehabil1994; 75: 394-398.
5.
5 Knott M, Voss DE. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Harper and Row, 1968.
6.
6 Bobath B. Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment. Wm Heinemann Medical Books, 1970.
7.
7 Brunnström S. Movement therapy in hemiplegia: a neurophysiological approach. Harper and Row, 1970.
8.
8 Wagenaar RC, Meijer OG, van Wieringen PCW et al. The functional recovery of stroke: a comparison between neuro-developmental treatment and the Brunnstrom method. Scand J Rehabil Med1990; 22: 1-8.
9.
9 Taub E, Wolf S. Constraint-induced movement techniques to facilitate upper extremity use in stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil1997; 3: 38-61.
10.
10 Lashley KS. Studies of cerebral function in learning: V. The retention of motor areas in primates. Arch Neurol Psychiatr1924; 12: 249-276.
11.
11 Lassek AM. Inactivation of voluntary motor function following rhizotomy. J Neuropathol Exp Stud1953; 2: 83-87.
12.
12 Knapp HD, Taub E, Berman AJ. Effect of deafferentation on a conditioned avoidance response. Science1958; 128: 842-843.
13.
13 Knapp HD, Taub E, Berman AJ. Movements in monkeys with deafferented forelimbs. Exp Neurol1963; 7: 305-315.
14.
14 Taub E, Bacon RC, Berman AJ. Acquisition of a trace-conditioned avoidance response after deafferentation of the responding limb. J Comp Physiol Psychol1965; 58: 275-279.
15.
15 Andrews K, Stewart J. Stroke recovery: he can but does he?Rheumatol Rehabil1979; 18: 43-48.
16.
16 Taub E. Somatosensory deafferentation research with monkeys: implications for rehabilitation medicine. In Ince LP ed. Behavioral psychology in rehabilitation medicine, clinical applications. William and Wilkins, 1980: 371-401.
17.
17 Sterr A, Freivogel S, Schmalohr D. Neurobehavioral aspects of recovery: assessment of the learned nonuse phenomenon in hemiparetic adolescent. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 1726-1731.
18.
18 Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol1989; 104: 125-132.
19.
19 Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1993; 74: 347-354.
20.
20 Morris D M, Crago JE, DeLuca SC, Pidikiti RD, Taub E. Constraint-induced movement therapy for motor recovery after stroke. NeuroRehabilitation1997; 9: 29-43.
21.
21 Taub E, Uswatte G, Elbert T. New treatments in neurorehabilitation founded on basic research. Nat Rev Neurosci2002; 3: 226-236.
22.
22 Wolf SL, Blanton S, Baer H, Breshears J, Butler AJ. Repetitive task practice: a critical review of constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke. The Neurologist2002; 8: 325-338.
23.
23 Page S, Levine P, Sisto SA, Bond Q, Johnston MV. Stroke patients' and therapists' opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy. Clin Rehabil2002; 16:55-60.
24.
24 Page S, Sisto SA, Levine P, Johnston MV, Hughes M. Modified constraint-induced therapy: a randomized feasibility and efficacy study. J Rehabil Res Dev2001; 38: 583-590.
25.
25 Page S, Sisto SA, Johnston MV, Levine P. Modified constraint-induced therapy after subacute stroke: a preliminary study. NeuroRehabil Neural Repair2002; 16: 290-295.
26.
26 Levin P, Page SJ. Modified constraint-induced therapy: a promising restorative outpatient therapy. Top Stroke Rehabil2004; 11: 1-10.
27.
27 Page SJ, Sisto SA, Levine P, McGrath RE. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2004; 85: 14-18.
28.
28 Sterr A, Elbert T, Berthold I, Kölbel S, Rockstroh B, Taub E. Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2002; 83: 1374-1377.
29.
29 Dettmers C, Teske U, Hamzei F, Uswatte G, Taub E, Weiller C. Distributed form of constraint-induced movement therapy improves functional outcome and quality of life after stroke. ArchPhys Med Rehabil2005; 86: 204-209.
30.
30 Taub E, Uswatte G, Pidikiti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy: a new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation - a clinical review. J Rehabil Res Dev1999; 36: 237-251.
31.
31 Miltner WHR, Bauder H, Sommer M, Dettmers C, Taub E. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke. Stroke1999; 30: 586-592.
32.
32 Kunkel A, Kopp B, Muller G et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy for motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1999; 80: 624-628.
33.
33 van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients. Stroke1999; 30: 2369-2375.
34.
34 van der Lee JH, Snels IAK, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Waagenar RC, Bouter LM. Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil2001; 15: 20-31.
35.
35 Sollerman C, Ejeskar A. Sollerman hand function test. A standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Hand Surg1995; 29: 167-176.
36.
36 De Renzi E, Vignolo LA. The Token test: A sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics. Brain1962; 85: 665-678.
37.
37 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ‘Mini-Mental State’ A practical method for grading the cognitive state for patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res1975; 12: 189-198.
38.
38 Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new Motor Assessment Scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther1985; 65: 175-180.
39.
39 Arnell M, Sigge L, Westlin C, Lindmark B. Vidareutveckling och reliabilitetsprovning av modifierad Motor Assessment Scale enligt Uppsala Akademiska Sjukhus (Swedish). Sjukgymnasten1996; 12 (suppl 3): 32-37.
40.
40 Barkelius K, Johansson A, Korm K, Lindmark B. Reliabilitetsoch validitetsprovning av Modifierad Motor Assessment Scale enligt Uppsala Akademiska sjukhus-95 (Swedish). Nordisk Fysioterapi1997; 1: 121-126.
41.
41 Moberg E. Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. J Bone Joint Surg1958; 40B: 454-476.
42.
42 van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL, de Vet HCW, Bouter LM. Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke2004; 35: 1410-1414.
43.
43 Taub E, Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy and massed practice. Stroke2000; 31: 983-c-983-c.
44.
44 Sterr A, Freivogel S. Motor-improvement following intensive training in low-functioning chronic hemiparesis. Neurology2003; 61: 842-844.
45.
45 Ploughman M, Corbett D. Can forced-use therapy be clinically applied after stroke? An exploratory randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2004; 85: 1417-1423.
46.
46 Pierce SR, Gallagher KG, Schaumburg SW, Gershkoff AM, Gaughan JP, Shutter L. Home forced use in an outpatient rehabilitation program for adults with hemiplegia: a pilot study. NeuroRehabil Neural Repair2003; 17: 214-219.
