Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2017
Upper Limb Isokinetic Strengthening Versus Passive Mobilization in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coroian Flavia, Jourdan Claire, Bakhti Karima, Palayer Claire, Jaussent Audrey, Picot Marie-Christine, Mottet Denis, Julia Marc, Bonnin Huey-Yune, Laffont Isabelle
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of isokinetic strengthening of the upper limb (UL) in patients with chronic stroke as compared to passive mobilization.
DESIGN: Randomized blinded assessor controlled trial.
SETTING: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation departments of 2 university hospitals.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=20) with incomplete hemiplegia (16 men; mean age, 64y; median time since stroke, 32mo).
INTERVENTIONS: A 6-week comprehensive rehabilitation program, 3d/wk, 3 sessions/d. In addition, a 45-minute session per day was performed using an isokinetic dynamometer, with either isokinetic strengthening of elbow and wrist flexors/extensors (isokinetic strengthening group) or passive joint mobilization (control group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the increase in Upper Limb Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UL-FMA) score at day 45 (t1). Secondary endpoints were increases in UL-FMA scores, Box and Block Test scores, muscle strength, spasticity, and Barthel Index at t1, t2 (3mo), and t3 (6mo).
RESULTS: Recruitment was stopped early because of excessive fatigue in the isokinetic strengthening group. The increase in UL-FMA score at t1 was 3.5±4.4 in the isokinetic strengthening group versus 6.0±4.5 in the control group (P=.2). Gains in distal UL-FMA scores were larger (3.1±2.8) in the control group versus 0.6±2.5 in the isokinetic strengthening group (P=.05). No significant group difference was observed in secondary endpoints. Mixed models confirmed those results. Regarding the whole sample, gains from baseline were significant for the UL-FMA at t1 (+4.8; P<.001), t2, and t3 and for the Box and Block Test at t1 (+3; P=.013) and t2.
CONCLUSIONS: In a comprehensive rehabilitation program, isokinetic strengthening did not show superiority to passive mobilization for UL rehabilitation. Findings also suggest a sustained benefit in impairments and function of late UL rehabilitation programs for patients with stroke.
DESIGN: Randomized blinded assessor controlled trial.
SETTING: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation departments of 2 university hospitals.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=20) with incomplete hemiplegia (16 men; mean age, 64y; median time since stroke, 32mo).
INTERVENTIONS: A 6-week comprehensive rehabilitation program, 3d/wk, 3 sessions/d. In addition, a 45-minute session per day was performed using an isokinetic dynamometer, with either isokinetic strengthening of elbow and wrist flexors/extensors (isokinetic strengthening group) or passive joint mobilization (control group).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the increase in Upper Limb Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UL-FMA) score at day 45 (t1). Secondary endpoints were increases in UL-FMA scores, Box and Block Test scores, muscle strength, spasticity, and Barthel Index at t1, t2 (3mo), and t3 (6mo).
RESULTS: Recruitment was stopped early because of excessive fatigue in the isokinetic strengthening group. The increase in UL-FMA score at t1 was 3.5±4.4 in the isokinetic strengthening group versus 6.0±4.5 in the control group (P=.2). Gains in distal UL-FMA scores were larger (3.1±2.8) in the control group versus 0.6±2.5 in the isokinetic strengthening group (P=.05). No significant group difference was observed in secondary endpoints. Mixed models confirmed those results. Regarding the whole sample, gains from baseline were significant for the UL-FMA at t1 (+4.8; P<.001), t2, and t3 and for the Box and Block Test at t1 (+3; P=.013) and t2.
CONCLUSIONS: In a comprehensive rehabilitation program, isokinetic strengthening did not show superiority to passive mobilization for UL rehabilitation. Findings also suggest a sustained benefit in impairments and function of late UL rehabilitation programs for patients with stroke.