This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1545968309335974v1 23/7/706    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Platz, T. Articles by Pohl, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Platz, T. Articles by Pohl, M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Best Conventional Therapy Versus Modular Impairment-Oriented Training for Arm Paresis After Stroke: A Single-Blind, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BDH-Klinik Greifswald, Department Neurowissenschaften des Universitätsklinikums, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald, Germany, t.platz{at}bdh-klinik-greifswald.de

Stefanie van Kaick, PT, MSc

Klinik Berlin, Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Jan Mehrholz

Klinik Bavaria, Abt Intensiv- und Frührehabilitation, Kreischa, Germany

Ottmar Leidner, MD

Moritz-Klinik, Bad Klosterlausnitz, Germany

Christel Eickhof, PT

Klinik Berlin, Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Marcus Pohl, MD

Klinik Bavaria, Abt Intensiv- und Frührehabilitation, Kreischa, Germany

Background. The study investigated whether passive splinting or active motor training as either individualized best conventional therapy or as standardized impairment-oriented training (IOT) would be superior in promoting motor recovery in subacute stroke patients with mildly or severely paretic arms. Methods. A total of 148 anterior circulation ischemic stroke patients were randomly assigned to 45 minutes of additional daily arm therapy over 3 to 4 weeks as either ( a) passive therapy with inflatable splints or active arm motor therapy as either (b) individualized best conventional therapy (CONV) or ( c) standardized IOT, that is Arm BASIS training for severe paresis or Arm Ability training for mild paresis. Main outcome measures included the following: Fugl-Meyer arm motor score (severely paretic arms) and the TEMPA time scores (mildly affected arms). Pre—post (immediate effects) and pre—4 weeks follow-up analyses (long-term effects) were performed. Results. Overall improvements were documented (mean baseline and change scores efficacy: Fugl-Meyer, arm motor scores, 24.4, +9.1 points; TEMPA, 119, –26.6 seconds; P < .0001), but with no differential effects between splint therapy and the combined active motor rehabilitation groups. Both efficacy and effectiveness analyses indicated, however, bigger immediate motor improvements after IOT as compared with best conventional therapy (Fugl-Meyer, arm motor scores: IOT +12.3, CONV +9.2 points; TEMPA: IOT –31.1 seconds, CONV –20.5 seconds; P = .0363); for mildly affected patients long-term effects could also be substantiated. Conclusions. Specificity of active training seemed more important for motor recovery than intensity (therapy time). The comprehensive modular IOT approach promoted motor recovery in patients with either severe or mild arm paresis.

Key Words: Stroke • Arm • Hemiparesis • Training • Rehabilitation

This version was published on September 1, 2009

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 23, No. 7, 706-716 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1545968309335974


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?