Can Short-Term Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Combined With Visual Biofeedback Training Improve Hemiplegic Upper Limb Function of Subacute Stroke Patients?

Objective

To Investigate the synergic effects of short-term constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) and visual biofeedback training (VBT) in subacute stroke patients.

Methods

Thirty-two subacute stroke patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of three groups: short-term CIMT with VBT, VBT only, and control groups. We applied CIMT for an hour daily during VBT instead of the ordinary restraint time, referred to as 'short-term' CIMT. Short-term CIMT with VBT group received simultaneous VBT with CIMT, whereas the VBT the only group received VBT without CIMT for an hour a day for 2 weeks. The control group received conventional occupational therapy (OT) alone. Patients underwent the Purdue Pegboard Test, the JAMAR grip strength test, the Wolf Motor Function Test, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (upper extremity), Motricity index and the Korean version of Modified Barthel Index test to evaluate motor functions of the hemiplegic upper limb at baseline, post-treatment, and 2 weeks after treatment.

Results

No significant differences were observed between short-term CIMT with VBT and VBT only groups. Both groups showed significantly higher scores compared to the control group in the WMFT and FMA tests. However, the short-term CIMT with VBT group showed significant improvement (p<0.05) compared with the control group in both grasp and pad pinch at post-treatment and 2 weeks after treatment while the VBT only group did not.

Conclusion

Short-term CIMT with VBT group did not show significant improvement of hemiplegic upper limb function of subacute stroke patients, compared to VBT only group. Larger sample sizes and different restraint times would be needed to clarify the effect.

Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in people with stroke

BACKGROUND

In people who have had a stroke, upper limb paresis affects many activities of daily life. Reducing disability is therefore a major aim of rehabilitative interventions. Despite preserving or recovering movement ability after stroke, sometimes people do not fully realise this ability in their everyday activities. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is an approach to stroke rehabilitation that involves the forced use and massed practice of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm. This has been proposed as a useful tool for recovering abilities in everyday activities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of CIMT, modified CIMT (mCIMT), or forced use (FU) for arm management in people with hemiparesis after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (1982 to January 2015), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; January 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing CIMT, mCIMT or FU with other rehabilitative techniques, or none.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author identified trials from the results of the electronic searches according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, three review authors independently assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcome was disability.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies involving 1453 participants. The trials included participants who had some residual motor power of the paretic arm, the potential for further motor recovery and with limited pain or spasticity, but tended to use the limb little, if at all. The majority of studies were underpowered (median number of included participants was 29) and we cannot rule out small-trial bias. Eleven trials (344 participants) assessed disability immediately after the intervention, indicating a non-significant standard mean difference (SMD) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05 to 0.52) favouring CIMT compared with conventional treatment. For the most frequently reported outcome, arm motor function (28 studies involving 858 participants), the SMD was 0.34 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.55) showing a significant effect (P value 0.004) in favour of CIMT. Three studies involving 125 participants explored disability after a few months of follow-up and found no significant difference, SMD -0.20 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.16) in favour of conventional treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CIMT is a multi-faceted intervention where restriction of the less affected limb is accompanied by increased exercise tailored to the person's capacity. We found that CIMT was associated with limited improvements in motor impairment and motor function, but that these benefits did not convincingly reduce disability. This differs from the result of our previous meta-analysis where there was a suggestion that CIMT might be superior to traditional rehabilitation. Information about the long-term effects of CIMT is scarce. Further trials studying the relationship between participant characteristics and improved outcomes are required.

Group Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy: Motor and Functional Outcomes in Individuals with Stroke

Background

Strokes frequently cause limitations of the upper extremity and in performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is designed to enhance the use of the hemiplegic arm.

Purpose

To assess the effects of group CIMT on upper-extremity motor function and performance level of motor and process skills for instrumental activities in daily living (IADL) in community-dwelling individuals whose stroke occurred at least six months earlier.

Methods

Eight adults with stroke participated in this study. Group-based CIMT was administered for two weeks, five times per week, with two-hour intensive daily training.

Findings

The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) score and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) scores improved after intervention.

Implications

The results of this study suggest that relatively brief group-based CIMT may be an effective intervention for improving motor function of the affected upper-limb and the level of IADL in individuals who have had stroke.

Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients

BACKGROUND

In stroke patients, upper limb paresis affects many activities of daily life. Reducing disability is therefore a major aim of rehabilitation programmes for hemiparetic patients. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is a current approach to stroke rehabilitation that implies the forced use and the massed practice of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of CIMT, modified CIMT (mCIMT), or forced use (FU) for arm management in hemiparetic patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched June 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2008), EMBASE (1980 to June 2008), CINAHL (1982 to June 2008), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (June 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (qRCTs) comparing CIMT, mCIMT or FU with other rehabilitative techniques, or none.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified the identified trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was disability.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies involving 619 participants. The trials included participants who had some residual motor power of the paretic arm, the potential for further motor recovery and with limited pain or spasticity, but tended to use the limb little if at all. Only five studies had adequate allocation concealment. The majority of studies were underpowered (median number of included patients was 15) and we cannot rule out small-trial bias. Six trials (184 patients) assessed disability immediately after the intervention, indicating a significant standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.65. For the most frequently reported outcome, arm motor function (11 studies involving 373 patients), the SMD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.12). There were only two studies that explored disability improvement after a few months of follow up and found no significant difference, SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.40).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CIMT is a multifaceted intervention: the restriction to the normal limb is accompanied by a certain amount of exercise of the appropriate quality. It is associated with a moderate reduction in disability assessed at the end of the treatment period. However, for disability measured some months after the end of treatment, there was no evidence of persisting benefit. Further randomised trials, with larger sample sizes and longer follow up, are justified.