Posts Tagged Occupational therapy

[ARTICLE] Intensive therapy after botulinum toxin in adults with spasticity after stroke versus botulinum toxin alone or therapy alone: a pilot, feasibility randomized trial – Full Text



Botulinum toxin-A is provided for adults with post-stroke spasticity. Following injection, there is a variation in the rehabilitation therapy type and amount provided. The purpose of this study was to determine if it is feasible to add intensive therapy to botulinum toxin-A injections for adults with spasticity and whether it is likely to be beneficial.


Randomized trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention to treat analysis. Thirty-seven adults (n = 3 incomplete or lost follow-up) with spasticity in the upper or lower limb were allocated to one of three groups: experimental group received a single dose of botulinum toxin-A plus an intensive therapy for 8 weeks, control group 1 received a single dose of botulinum toxin-A only, and control group 2 received intensive therapy only for 8 weeks. Feasibility was measured by examining recruitment, intervention (adherence, acceptability, safety), and measurement. Benefit was measured as goal achievement (Goal Attainment Scale), upper limb activity (Box and Block Test), walking (6-min walk test) and spasticity (Tardieu scale), at baseline (week 0), immediately after (week 8), and at three months (week 12).


Overall recruitment fraction for the trial was 37% (eligibility fraction 39%, enrolment fraction 95%). The 26 participants allocated to receive intensive rehabilitation attended 97% of clinic-based sessions (mean 11 ± 2 h) and an averaged 58% (mean 52 ± 32 h) of prescribed 90 h of independent practice. There were no study-related adverse events reported. Although participants in all groups increased their goal attainment, there were no between-group differences for this or other outcomes at week 8 or 12.


Providing intensive therapy following botulinum toxin-A is feasible for adults with neurological spasticity. The study methods are appropriate for a future trial. A future trial would require 134 participants to detect a between-group difference of 7 points on Goal Attainment Scale t-scores with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%.


Spasticity affects approximately 20% of stroke survivors [14] and is thought to significantly contribute to falls after stroke [56] as well as decreased activity participation [34]. Unsurprisingly, higher costs are thus incurred by patients with spasticity during the first year of survival [7]. Health professionals identify that addressing spasticity is a high priority during rehabilitation [8], and there is international consensus that localized spasticity (i.e., in the upper or lower limbs) is best managed with a combination of botulinum toxin and physical therapy [910]. While these consensus papers appear to agree, clinical management remains diverse [1112] and provides an ongoing challenge for both therapists and health services alike.

In Australia, stroke rehabilitation is guided by the Stroke Foundation clinical practice guidelines [13]. These guidelines recommend that management of moderate to severe spasticity include the use of botulinum toxin type A in additionto physical therapy interventions [13]. Unfortunately, clinical survey data suggests that occupational therapists and physiotherapists report providing therapy post-botulinum toxin type A injections less than a quarter of the time (an estimated 16%) [12]. This low rate of therapy provision suggests ongoing uncertainty among clinicians as to how to treat patients with spasticity. Such uncertainty is likely to stem from the lack of research studies that describe the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of therapy that is effective for people who have received botulinum toxin injections. While there are previous studies which have tested the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A for spasticity management after stroke [1416], what remains unknown is whether or not therapy should be provided to this group of patients.

To inform best practice in the treatment and rehabilitation of spasticity in people with neurological conditions, understanding whether the suggested combined effects of using both therapy and botulinum toxin type A together is more beneficial than botulinum toxin-A alone or physiotherapy interventions alone is key. Given the lack of research in this area, a large, powered randomized controlled trial is required. In preparation for this trial, it is key to understand both the feasibility and likely effects of the interventions; therefore, the research questions posed in this pilot study were:

  1. In neurological patients with spasticity, is it feasible to add intensive therapy to botulinum toxin-A injections if the therapy includes both clinic-based and home-based therapy sessions?
  2. Is adding intensive therapy likely to be of any benefit to goal attainment, upper limb activity, walking, and spasticity over botulinum toxin-A alone or intensive therapy alone?[…]

Continue —> Intensive therapy after botulinum toxin in adults with spasticity after stroke versus botulinum toxin alone or therapy alone: a pilot, feasibility randomized trial

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract+References] SMART Arm Training With Outcome-Triggered Electrical Stimulation in Subacute Stroke Survivors With Severe Arm Disability: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background. Stroke survivors with severe upper limb disability need opportunities to engage in task-oriented practice to achieve meaningful recovery. Objective. To compare the effect of SMART Arm training, with or without outcome-triggered electrical stimulation to usual therapy, on arm function for stroke survivors with severe upper limb disability undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. Methods. A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 3 parallel groups, concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. Fifty inpatients within 4 months of stroke with severe upper limb disability were randomly allocated to 60 min/d, 5 days a week for 4 weeks of (1) SMART Arm with outcome-triggered electrical stimulation and usual therapy, (2) SMART Arm alone and usual therapy, or (3) usual therapy. Assessment occurred at baseline (0 weeks), posttraining (4 weeks), and follow-up (26 and 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure was Motor Assessment Scale item 6 (MAS6) at posttraining. Results. All groups demonstrated a statistically (P < .001) and clinically significant improvement in arm function at posttraining (MAS6 change ≥1 point) and at 52 weeks (MAS6 change ≥2 points). There were no differences in improvement in arm function between groups (P= .367). There were greater odds of a higher MAS6 score in SMART Arm groups as compared with usual therapy alone posttraining (SMART Arm stimulation generalized odds ratio [GenOR] = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.23-1.71) and at 26 weeks (SMART Arm alone GenOR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.05-1.57). Conclusion. SMART Arm training supported a clinically significant improvement in arm function, which was similar to usual therapy. All groups maintained gains at 12 months.

1. Houwink, A, Nijland, RH, Geurts, AC, Kwakkel, G. Functional recovery of the paretic upper limb after stroke: who regains hand capacity? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:839844Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
2. Broeks, JG, Lankhorst, GJ, Rumping, K, Prevo, AJ. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:357364Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
3. Wolf, SL, Kwakkel, G, Bayley, M, McDonnell, MN. Upper Extremity Stroke Algorithm Working Group. Best practice for arm recovery post stroke: an international application. Physiotherapy. 2016;102:14Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
4. Kleim, JA. Neural plasticity and neurorehabilitation: teaching the new brain old tricks. J Commun Disord. 2011;44:521528Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
5. Pollock, A, Farmer, SE, Brady, MC. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD010820Google ScholarMedline
6. Zondervan, DK, Augsburger, R, Bodenhoefer, B, Friedman, N, Reinkensmeyer, DJ, Cramer, SC. Machine-based, self-guided home therapy for individuals with severe arm impairment after stroke:a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:395406Google ScholarLink
7. Howlett, OA, Lannin, NA, Ada, L, McKinstry, C. Functional electrical stimulation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:934943Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
8. McCabe, J, Monkiewicz, M, Holcomb, J, Pundik, S, Daly, JJ. Comparison of robotics, functional electrical stimulation, and motor learning methods for treatment of persistent upper extremity dysfunction after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:981990Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
9. Barker, RN, Brauer, SG, Carson, RG. Training of reaching in stroke survivors with severe and chronic upper limb paresis using a novel nonrobotic device: a randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 2008;39:18001807Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
10. Hayward, KS, Barker, RN, Brauer, SG, Lloyd, D, Horsley, SA, Carson, RG. SMART Arm with outcome-triggered electrical stimulation: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2013;20:289298Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
11. Barker, RN, Brauer, S, Carson, R. Training-induced changes in the pattern of triceps to biceps activation during reaching tasks after chronic and severe stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2009;196:483496Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
12. Barker, RN, Brauer, SG, Barry, BK, Gill, TJ, Carson, RG. Training-induced modifications of corticospinal reactivity in severely affected stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res. 2012;221:211221Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
13. Zeiler, SR, Krakauer, JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the post-stroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26:609616Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
14. Hayward, KS, Neibling, BA, Barker, RN. Self-administered, home-based SMART (Sensorimotor Active Rehabilitation Training) arm training: a single-case report. Am J Occup Ther. 2015;69:6904210020p1-8. Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
15. Wahl, AS, Schwab, ME. Finding an optimal rehabilitation paradigm after stroke: enhancing fiber growth and training of the brain at the right moment. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:381Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
16. Hatam, SM, Saussez, G, Della Faille, M. Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:442Google ScholarMedline
17. Murphy, TH, Corbett, D. Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10:861872Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
18. Kwah, LK, Harvey, LA, Diong, JH, Herbert, RD. Half of the adults who present to hospital with stroke develop at least one contracture within six months: an observational study. J Physiother. 2012;58:4147Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
19. Adey-Wakeling, Z, Arima, H, Crotty, M. Incidence and associations of hemiplegic shoulder pain poststroke: prospective population-based study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:241.e1247.e1Google ScholarCrossref
20. Kleim, JA. Neural Plasticity: Foundation for Neurorehabilita-tion. Scottsdale, AZTanas2012Google Scholar
21. Brauer, SG, Hayward, KS, Carson, RG, Cresswell, AG, Barker, RN. The efficacy of SMART arm training early after stroke for stroke survivors with severe upper limb disability: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Neurol. 2013;13:71Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
22. Malouin, F, Pichard, L, Bonneau, C, Durand, A, Corriveau, D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:12061212Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
23. Hayward, KS, Kuys, SS, Barker, RN, Brauer, SG. Can stroke survivors with severe upper arm disability achieve clinically important change in arm function during inpatient rehabilitation? A multicentre, prospective, observational study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;35:1723Google ScholarMedline
24. Bohannon, RW, Smith, MB. Inter-rater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206207Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
25. Ritchie, DM, Boyle, JA, McInnes, JM. Clinical studies with an articular index for the assessment of joint tenderness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Q J Med. 1968;37:393406Google ScholarMedline
26. Khan, A, Chien, CW, Brauer, SG. Rasch-based scoring offered more precision in differentiating patient groups in measuring upper limb function. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:681687Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
27. Duncan, PW, Wallace, D, Lai, SM, Johnson, D, Emberston, S, Laster, LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0. Evaluation of the reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:21312140Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
28. Uswatte, G, Taub, E, Morris, D, Light, K, Thompson, PA. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology. 2006;67:11891194Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
29. Helm-Estabrooks, N. Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test. Examiner’s Manual. San Antonio, TXPsychological Corporation, Harcourt Assessment Company2001Google Scholar
30. Lincoln, NB, Jackson, JM, Adams, SA. Reliability and revision of the Nottingham Sensory Assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 1998:358365Google Scholar
31. Winters, C, Heymans, MW, van Wegen, EE, Kwakkel, G. How to design clinical rehabilitation trials for the upper paretic limb early post stroke? Trials. 2016;17:468Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
32. van der Lee, JH, Wagenaar, RC, Lankhorst, GJ, Vogelaar, TW, Deville, WL, Bouter, LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients—results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999;30:23692375Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
33. Hayward, KS, Kuys, SS, Barker, RN, Brauer, SG. Clinically important improvements in motor function are achievable during inpatient rehabilitation by stroke patients with severe motor disability: a prospective observational study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34:773779Google ScholarMedline
34. Churilov, L, Arnup, S, Johns, H. An improved method for simple, assumption-free ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale using generalized odds ratios. Int J Stroke. 2014;9:9991005Google ScholarLink
35. Hayward, KS, Barker, RN, Wiseman, AH, Brauer, SG. Dose and content of training provided to stroke survivors with severe upper limb disability undertaking inpatient rehabilitation: an observational study. Brain Impairment. 2013;14:392405Google ScholarCrossref
36. Shirzad, N, Van der Loos, HFM. Evaluating the user experience of exercising reaching motions with a robot that predicts desired movement difficulty. J Mot Behav. 2016;48:3146Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
37. Bernstein, NA. The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movement. Oxford, EnglandPergamon Press1967Google Scholar
38. Krakauer, JW. Rethinking motor rehabilitation after strokePaper presented at: International Conference on Virtual RehabilitationJune 9-12, 2015Valencia, SpainGoogle Scholar
39. Guadagnoli, MA, Lee, TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36:212224Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
40. Winters, C, van Wegen, EE, Daffertshofer, A, Kwakkel, G. Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:614622Google ScholarLinkISI
41. Schneider, EJ, Lannin, NA, Ada, L, Schmidt, J. Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2016;62:182187Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
42. Krakauer, JW, Marshall, RS. The proportional recovery rule for stroke revisited. Ann Neurol. 2015;78:845847Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
43. Duncan, PW, Goldstein, LB, Matchar, D, Divine, GW, Feussner, J. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke—outcome assessment and sample-size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23:10841089Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
44. Birkenmeier, RL, Prager, EM, Lang, CE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:620635Google ScholarLink
45. Lang, CE, Lohse, KR, Birkenmeier, RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28:549555Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
46. Magill, RA, Anderson, D. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. 10th ed. New York, NYMcGraw-Hill2014Google Scholar
47. Lee, JY, Ready, EA, Davis, EN, Doyle, PC. Purposefulness as a critical factor in functioning, disability and health. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31:10051018Google ScholarLink
48. Bernhardt, J, Borschmann, K, Boyd, L. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke. 2016;11:454458Google ScholarLinkISI
49. Hayward, KS. It is time to redefine recovery for individuals with severe upper limb impairment after stroke. IJTR Int J Ther Rehabil. 2016;23:256257Google ScholarCrossref
50. Krebs, HI, Hogan, N. Therapeutic robotics: a technology push. Stroke rehabilitation is being aided by robots that guide movement of shoulders and elbows, wrists, hands, arms and ankles to significantly improve recovery of patients. Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng. 2006;94:17271738Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
51. de Kroon, JR, van der Lee, JH, Ijzerman, MJ, Lankhorst, GJ. Therapeutic electrical stimulation to improve motor control and functional abilities of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:350360Google ScholarLink
52. Cauraugh, J, Light, K, Kim, S, Thigpen, M, Behrman, A. Chronic motor dysfunction after stroke: recovering wrist and finger extension by electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation. Stroke. 2000;31:13601364Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
53. Veerbeek, JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort, AC, van Wegen, EE, Meskers, CG, Kwakkel, G. Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:107121Google ScholarLink
54. Nascimento, LR, Michaelsen, SM, Ada, L, Polese, JC, Teixeira-Salmela, LF. Cyclical electrical stimulation increases strength and improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2014;60:2230Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
55. Kwakkel, G, Kollen, BJ, van der Grond, J, Prevo, AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:21812186Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
56. Dromerick, AW, Edwardson, MA, Edwards, DF. Critical periods after stroke study: translating animal stroke recovery experiments into a clinical trial. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:231Google ScholarCrossrefMedline

via SMART Arm Training With Outcome-Triggered Electrical Stimulation in Subacute Stroke Survivors With Severe Arm Disability: A Randomized Controlled TrialNeurorehabilitation and Neural Repair – Ruth N. Barker, Kathryn S. Hayward, Richard G. Carson, David Lloyd, Sandra G. Brauer, 2017

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] SITAR: a system for independent task-oriented assessment and rehabilitation

Over recent years, task-oriented training has emerged as a dominant approach in neurorehabilitation. This article presents a novel, sensor-based system for independent task-oriented assessment and rehabilitation (SITAR) of the upper limb.

The SITAR is an ecosystem of interactive devices including a touch and force–sensitive tabletop and a set of intelligent objects enabling functional interaction. In contrast to most existing sensor-based systems, SITAR provides natural training of visuomotor coordination through collocated visual and haptic workspaces alongside multimodal feedback, facilitating learning and its transfer to real tasks. We illustrate the possibilities offered by the SITAR for sensorimotor assessment and therapy through pilot assessment and usability studies.

The pilot data from the assessment study demonstrates how the system can be used to assess different aspects of upper limb reaching, pick-and-place and sensory tactile resolution tasks. The pilot usability study indicates that patients are able to train arm-reaching movements independently using the SITAR with minimal involvement of the therapist and that they were motivated to pursue the SITAR-based therapy.

SITAR is a versatile, non-robotic tool that can be used to implement a range of therapeutic exercises and assessments for different types of patients, which is particularly well-suited for task-oriented training.

The increasing demand for intense, task-specific neurorehabilitation following neurological conditions such as stroke and spinal cord injury has stimulated extensive research into rehabilitation technology over the last two decades.1,2 In particular, robotic devices have been developed to deliver a high dose of engaging repetitive therapy in a controlled manner, decrease the therapist’s workload and facilitate learning. Current evidence from clinical interventions using these rehabilitation robots generally show results comparable to intensity-matched, conventional, one-to-one training with a therapist.35 Assuming the correct movements are being trained, the primary factor driving this recovery appears to be the intensity of voluntary practice during robotic therapy rather than any other factor such as physical assistance required.6,7 Moreover, most existing robotic devices to train the upper limb (UL) tend to be bulky and expensive, raising further questions on the use of complex, motorised systems for neurorehabilitation.

Recently, simpler, non-actuated devices, equipped with sensors to measure patients’ movement or interaction, have been designed to provide performance feedback, motivation and coaching during training.812 Research in haptics13,14 and human motor control15,16 has shown how visual, auditory and haptic feedback can be used to induce learning of a skill in a virtual or real dynamic environment. For example, simple force sensors (or even electromyography) can be used to infer motion control17and provide feedback on the required and actual performances, which can allow subjects to learn a desired task. Therefore, an appropriate therapy regime using passive devices that provide essential and engaging feedback can enhance learning of improved arm and hand use.

Such passive sensor-based systems can be used for both impairment-based training (e.g. gripAble18) and task-oriented training (ToT) (e.g. AutoCITE8,9, ReJoyce11). ToT views the patient as an active problem-solver, focusing rehabilitation on the acquisition of skills for performance of meaningful and relevant tasks rather than on isolated remediation of impairments.19,20 ToT has proven to be beneficial for participants and is currently considered as a dominant and effective approach for training.20,21

Sensor-based systems are ideal for delivering task-oriented therapy in an automated and engaging fashion. For instance, the AutoCITE system is a workstation containing various instrumented devices for training some of the tasks used in constraint-induced movement therapy.8 The ReJoyce uses a passive manipulandum with a composite instrumented object having various functionally shaped components to allow sensing and training of gross and fine hand functions.11 Timmermans et al.22reported how stroke survivors can carry out ToT by using objects on a tabletop with inertial measurement units (IMU) to record their movement. However, this system does not include force sensors, critical in assessing motor function.

In all these systems, subjects perform tasks such as reach or object manipulation at the tabletop level, while receiving visual feedback from a monitor placed in front of them. This dislocation of the visual and haptic workspaces may affect the transfer of skills learned in this virtual environment to real-world tasks. Furthermore, there is little work on using these systems for the quantitative task-oriented assessment of functional tasks. One exception to this is the ReJoyce arm and hand function test (RAHFT)23 to quantitatively assess arm and hand function. However, the RAHFT primarily focuses on range-of-movement in different arm and hand functions and does not assess the movement quality, which is essential for skilled action.2428

To address these limitations, this article introduces a novel, sensor-based System for Independent Task-Oriented Assessment and Rehabilitation (SITAR). The SITAR consists of an ecosystem of different modular devices capable of interacting with each other to provide an engaging interface with appropriate real-world context for both training and assessment of UL. The current realisation of the SITAR is an interactive tabletop with visual display as well as touch and force sensing capabilities and a set of intelligent objects. This system provides direct interaction with collocation of visual and haptic workspaces and a rich multisensory feedback through a mixed reality environment for neurorehabilitation.

The primary aim of this study is to present the SITAR concept, the current realisation of the system, together with preliminary data demonstrating the SITAR’s capabilities for UL assessment and training. The following section introduces the SITAR concept, providing the motivation and rationale for its design and specifications. Subsequently, we describe the current realisation of the SITAR, its different components and their capabilities. Finally, preliminary data from two pilot clinical studies are presented, which demonstrate the SITAR’s functionalities for ToT and assessment of the UL. […]

Continue —> SITAR: a system for independent task-oriented assessment and rehabilitation Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering – Asif Hussain, Sivakumar Balasubramanian, Nick Roach, Julius Klein, Nathanael Jarrassé, Michael Mace, Ann David, Sarah Guy, Etienne Burdet, 2017

Figure 1. The SITAR concept with (a) the interactive table-top alongside some examples of intelligent objects developed including (b) iJar to train bimanual control, (c) iPen for drawing, and (d) iBox for manipulation and pick-and-place.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Content of conventional therapy for the severely affected arm during subacute rehabilitation after stroke: An analysis of physiotherapy and occupational therapy practice 


Background and Purpose

Physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) are key professions providing treatment for the arm after stroke; however, knowledge about the content of these treatments is scant. Detailed data are needed to replicate interventions, evaluate their effective components, and evaluate PT and OT practice. This paper describes PT and OT treatment for the severely affected arm in terms of duration, content according to components and categories of the International Classification of Human Functioning, Disability and Health, and to analyze differences between professions.


Design: This is a retrospective analysis of randomized trial data. Participants: 46 patients after stroke with poor arm motor control recruited from inpatient neurological units from three rehabilitation centers in the Netherlands. Procedure: PTs and OTs recorded duration and content of arm treatment interventions for 8 weeks using a bespoke treatment schedule with 15 International Classification of Human Functioning, Disability and Health categories.


PTs and OTs spent on average 4–7 min per treatment session (30 min) on arm treatment. OTs spent significantly more time providing arm treatment and treatment at the activities level than PTs. PTs spent 79% of their arm treatment time on body functions, OTs 41%. OTs spent significantly more time on “moving around using transportation,” “self care,” and “household tasks” categories.


Patients after stroke with a severely affected arm and an unfavorable prognosis for arm motor recovery receive little arm-oriented PT and OT. Therapists spent most arm treatment time on body functions. There was a considerable overlap in the content of PT and OT in 12 of the 15 categories. Results can be generalized only to patients with poor arm motor control and may not represent practice in other countries.

Source: Content of conventional therapy for the severely affected arm during subacute rehabilitation after stroke: An analysis of physiotherapy and occupational therapy practice – Jong – 2017 – Physiotherapy Research International – Wiley Online Library

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Occupational therapy for the upper limb after stroke: implementing evidence-based constraint induced movement therapy into practice. – Doctoral thesis


Constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT), an intervention to increase upper limb (UL) function post-stroke, is not used routinely by therapists in the United Kingdom; reasons for this are unknown. Using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to analyse CIMT research and context, a series of related studies explored implementation of CIMT into practice.

Methods and Findings
Systematic review: nineteen CIMT randomised controlled trials found evidence of effectiveness in sub-acute stroke, but could not determine the most effective evidence-based protocols. Further review of qualitative data found paucity of evidence relating to acceptability and feasibility of CIMT.
Focus group: perceptions of the feasibility, including facilitators and barriers, of implementing CIMT into practice were explored in a group of eight therapists. Thematic analysis identified five themes: personal characteristics; setting and support; ethical considerations; education and training; and practicalities, which need to be addressed prior to implementation of CIMT.

Mixed-methods, pilot study (three single cases): pre- and post-CIMT (participant preferred protocol) interviews explored perceptions and experiences of CIMT, with pre- and post-CIMT measurement of participation and UL function. Findings indicated: (i) provision of evidence-based CIMT protocols was feasible, although barriers persisted; (ii) piloted data collection and analysis methods facilitated exploration of stroke survivors’ perceptions and experiences, and recorded participation and UL function.

Findings traversed PARIHS elements (evidence, context, facilitation), and should be considered prior to further CIMT implementation. Future studies of CIMT should explore: effects of CIMT protocol variations; characteristics of stroke survivors most likely to benefit from CIMT; interactions between CIMT and participation.

Source: Keele Research Repository – Keele University

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Rehabilitation plus OnabotulinumtoxinA Improves Motor Function over OnabotulinumtoxinA Alone in Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity: A Single-Blind, Randomized Trial – Full Text HTML


Background: OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) can temporarily decrease spasticity following stroke, but whether there is an associated improvement in upper limb function is less clear. This study measured the benefit of adding weekly rehabilitation to a background of BoNT-A treatments for chronic upper limb spasticity following stroke. Methods: This was a multi-center clinical trial. Thirty-one patients with post-stroke upper limb spasticity were treated with BoNT-A. They were then randomly assigned to 24 weeks of weekly upper limb rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. They were injected up to two times, and followed for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the Fugl–Meyer upper extremity score, which measures motor function, sensation, range of motion, coordination, and speed. Results: The ‘rehab’ group significantly improved on the Fugl–Meyer upper extremity score (Visit 1 = 60, Visit 5 = 67) while the ‘no rehab’ group did not improve (Visit 1 = 59, Visit 5 = 59; p = 0.006). This improvement was largely driven by the upper extremity “movement” subscale, which showed that the ‘rehab’ group was improving (Visit 1 = 33, Visit 5 = 37) while the ‘no rehab’ group remained virtually unchanged (Visit 1 = 34, Visit 5 = 33; p = 0.034). Conclusions: Following injection of BoNT-A, adding a program of rehabilitation improved motor recovery compared to an injected group with no rehabilitation.

1. Introduction

While several blinded and open-label studies have demonstrated the ability of botulinum toxin to temporarily decrease spasticity following stroke, as measured by standard assessments such as the Modified Ashworth Scale [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], the ability of botulinum toxin to improve upper limb function following stroke is less clear, with some studies [1,3,4,5,6,7,8], though not all [2,7], reporting functional improvement. Two recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that botulinum toxin treatment resulted in a moderate improvement in upper limb function [9,10]. Despite large clinical trials [2,3,11] and FDA approval, the exact timing, use of adjunct rehabilitation, and continuation of lifelong botulinum toxin treatment remains unclear [12,13].
A recent Cochrane Review included three randomized clinical trials for post-stroke spasticity involving 91 participants [14]. It aimed to determine the efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs following treatment with botulinum toxin, and found some evidence supporting modified constraint-induced movement therapy and dynamic elbow splinting. There have been varied study designs exploring rehabilitation in persons after the injection of botulinum toxin or a placebo [13,15], rehabilitation in persons after the injection of botulinum toxin or no injection [16], or rehabilitation after the injection of botulinum toxin with no control condition [17]. As the use of botulinum toxin expands and is beneficial in reducing spasticity and costs [18], the benefit of adding upper limb rehabilitation continues to be questioned. We designed this multi-center, randomized, single-blind clinical trial to assess improvement in patient sensory and motor outcome following the injection of onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A), comparing the effects of rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, using the upper extremity portion of the Fugl–Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery After Stroke [19] as the primary outcome measure. While patients could not be blinded to their randomization to receive additional rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, the assessments of all of the outcome measures were performed by evaluators blinded to rehabilitation assignment in this single-blind design.

2. Results

Thirty-one patients with post-stroke upper limb spasticity were enrolled, with 29 completing the study (Figure 1). The strokes occurred an average of 6 years prior to study entry, with a range of 6 months to 16½ years. The upper extremity postures treated included flexed elbow, pronated forearm, flexed wrist, flexed fingers, and clenched fist, and were evenly distributed between the treatment groups (the initial dose of BoNT-A administered was left up to the clinician’s judgment based on the amount of spasticity present, and did not differ between groups). One participant (‘no rehab’, injected at Visits 1 and 3A) left the study after Visit 3A due to a deterioration in general health and an inability to travel to study visits. A second participant (‘no rehab’, injected at Visits 1 and 3A) left the study after Visit 4 due to a fall with a broken affected wrist. All of the participants were injected at Visit 1, 19 were injected at Visit 3 (8 ‘rehab’; 11 ‘no rehab’), and 7 were injected at Visit 3A (3 ‘rehab’; 4 ‘no rehab’). Those participants who did not receive injections at Visits 3 or 3A had a level of spasticity that either did not meet the injection criteria due to an Ashworth score of <2 in the wrist (and/or fingers) or one that was felt to be too low to warrant injection. Table 1 provides a description of each group with regard to age, sex, race, whether the stroke occurred in the dominant hemisphere, and clinical measures. At baseline, the treatment groups did not differ on any demographic or clinical variables. […]

Continue—>  Toxins | Free Full-Text | Rehabilitation plus OnabotulinumtoxinA Improves Motor Function over OnabotulinumtoxinA Alone in Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity: A Single-Blind, Randomized Trial | HTML

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[BOOK] “Occupational Therapy – Occupation Focused Holistic Practice in Rehabilitation” – Chapter 9: Virtual Reality and Occupational Therapy


Virtual reality is three dimensional, interactive and fun way in rehabilitation. Its first known use in rehabilitation published by Max North named as “Virtual Environments and Psychological Disorders” (1994). Virtual reality uses special programmed computers, visual devices and artificial environments for the clients’ rehabilitation. Throughout technological improvements, virtual reality devices changed from therapeutic gloves to augmented reality environments. Virtual reality was being used in different rehabilitation professions such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, psychology and so on. In spite of common virtual reality approach of different professions, each profession aims different outcomes in rehabilitation. Virtual reality in occupational therapy generally focuses on hand and upper extremity functioning, cognitive rehabilitation, mental disorders, etc. Positive effects of virtual reality were mentioned in different studies, which are higher motivation than non‐simulated environments, active participation of the participants, supporting motor learning, fun environment and risk‐free environment. Additionally, virtual reality was told to be used as assessment. This chapter will focus on usage of virtual reality in occupational therapy, history and recent developments, types of virtual reality technologic equipment, pros and cons, usage for pediatric, adult and geriatric people and recent research and articles.

1. Introduction

Enhancement of functional ability and the realization of greater participation in community life are the two major goals of rehabilitation science. Improving sensory, motor, cognitive functions and practice in everyday activities and occupations to increase participation with intensive rehabilitation may define these predefined goals [1, 2]. Intervention is based primarily on the different types of purposeful activities and occupations with active participation [35]. For many injuries and disabilities, the rehabilitation process is long, and clinicians face the challenge of identifying a variety of appealing, meaningful and motivating intervention tasks that may be adapted and graded to facilitate this process [5].

Occupational therapy (OT), which is one of the rehabilitation professions, is a client‐centered profession that helps people who are suffering participation and occupational performance limitations. OT offers a wide range of rehabilitation strategies in different medical and social diagnosis [2]. The common point of all these strategies in rehabilitation is that OT assesses and supports enhancing functional ability and participation throughout participating in meaningful activities in a person’s lifespan. To enhance participation, OT, like the rest of the health professions, uses World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to understand function in a biopsychosocial manner. In ICF framework, function is defined as the interactions between an individual, their health conditions and the social and personal situations in which they thrive. The complex interactions between these variables define function and disability [1].

ICF classifies health and health‐related fields in two groups. These groups are “body functions” and “body structures” and “activity and participation.” Sub heading of these groups is considered as body function and structures (physical, physiological etc), activities (daily tasks) and participation (life roles) [1]. When these groups taken into account in rehabilitation, occupational therapists focus on all areas to enhance a client’s activity participation, social participation, etc. However, in current literature, there are various rehabilitation approaches that are being used for this aim. Advancements in technology in the twenty‐first century create great opportunities for people working in different areas. In particular, in health practices like rehabilitation, technology supports therapists’ to rehabilitate their clients in too many different ways like robotics, stimulation devices, assessment tools and virtual reality [610].

, , ,

Leave a comment

[Case Study] Improved functional independence measure facilitates return to home after paralyzed upper-limb training: a case report – Full Text PDF


[Purpose] We report a case in which rehabilitation that targeted the paralyzed side’s upper limb in a hemiplegic stroke patient remarkably accelerated the patient’s ability to perform activities of daily living, improved her Functional Independence Measure score, and facilitated the patient’s return to home.

[Subject and Methods] We provided rehabilitation training to a female patient who experienced a cerebral infarction at a nursing home for the elderly and was admitted to the Kaifukuki recovery phase rehabilitation ward in order to improve her activities of daily living and return home. An intensive rehabilitation program incorporating occupational therapy and physical training for upper-limb function on the affected side was instituted over 170 days.

[Results] At presentation, the patient had functional disorders and load-induced pain in both lower limbs requiring her to walk with a fixed-type walker. After the intensive rehabilitation program, her activities of daily living improved and she was able to return home.

[Conclusion] This case suggests that activities of daily living training and simultaneous active training of upper-limb function on the affected side in patients with functional disorders or lower-limb pain could effectively improve their Functional Independence Measure scores, promote functional recovery, and facilitate their return to home.


Motor and cognitive impairments in stroke patients result in disability or dependence during activities of daily living (ADL) among the elderly. ADL performance requires optimal motor function in the trunk and upper and lower extremities. Self-reported disability measures, such as the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), are used to determine functional limitations1) . As it is more difficult to recover function in affected upper extremities than it is in the lower extremities, and since ADL can often be performed with only the unaffected side2, 3) , rehabilitation is aimed at improving function in the unaffected upper extremity4, 5) or switching hand dominance6) . Strategies are designed to improve FIM scores and reduce return-to-home times, as these measures are often also used to evaluate the productivity of rehabilitation clinics and determine budget- and reimbursement-related questions as well7) . In this setting where training to improve function in the affected upper extremity is seldom prioritized, we experienced a rare case wherein functional improvement in the affected dominant upper extremity greatly improved FIM scores and allowed the patient to return home.

Continue —> Full Text PDF

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[BLOG POST] Study Compares Intento Device and Traditional Occupational Therapy  

The Intento device is designed to enable patients to control the functional electronic stimulation that they receive, to help patients regain mobility in arms weakened by a stroke.

The Intento device is designed to enable patients to control the functional electronic stimulation that they receive, to help them regain mobility in arms weakened by a stroke.

A device from Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne startup company Intento is designed to enable stroke patients to self-administer functional electrical stimulation to help regain mobility in their arms weakened by the stroke.

The system consists of electrode patches, a device the patients control using their working hand, and tablet software. The therapist selects one of several programmed movements on the tablet and loads it, with a single click, onto the device. The program shows where the electrodes need to be placed and automatically configures the electrical pulse settings to generate the desired movement. Patients then move their functioning hand to control the electrical stimulation needed.

The ultimate aim is for patients to eventually perform the movements without using the device, explains a media release from Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale.

Results from a study investigating Intento’s device were published recently in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

In the study, researchers from Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) compared the device to conventional occupational therapy among 11 patients who were severely paralyzed as the result of a stroke. These patients experienced the stroke more than 6 months prior to the study, and other therapies did not work for them.

Over a period of 10 days, the 11 patients underwent 1.5-hour sessions using the Intento device.

Their mobility results from using the device were then compared to the results following conventional occupational therapy conducted over the same amount of time. The patients’ mobility was measured before and after each type of treatment, according to the release.

The results suggest that 70% of the patients experienced significant improvement in their motor functions, versus only 30% of the patients with the conventional occupational therapy.

“Above and beyond the study’s findings, several of the patients told us a few weeks later that they were already using their arms more than before,” says Andrea Maesani, Intento’s CEO and other cofounder, in the release.

Patients were still making steady progress 6 months after the study was conducted, suggesting that the treatment produces long-term effects, according to the release.

The next step will be a clinical study on a larger group before marketing the device, the founders state in the release.

[Source(s): Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale, EurekAlert]

Source: Study Compares Intento Device and Traditional Occupational Therapy – Rehab Managment

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: