Task-Specific Training With Trunk Restraint on Arm Recovery in Stroke: Randomized Control Trial

Background and Purpose— Task-specific training improves functional outcomes after stroke. However, gains may be accompanied by increases in movements compensating for motor impairments. We hypothesized that restriction of compensatory trunk movements may encourage recovery of premorbid movement patterns leading to better functional outcomes. The goal was to determine whether task-specific training with trunk-restraint (TR) produces greater improvements in arm impairment and function than training without TR in patients with chronic hemiparesis. Methods— Double-blind randomized control trial of a therapist-supervised home program (3 times per week, 5 weeks) in 30 patients with chronic hemiparesis stratified by arm impairment level (Fugl-Meyer) was performed. Intervention group (TR group) received progressive object-related reach-to-grasp training with prevention of trunk movements. Control group (C) practiced tasks without TR. Main outcome measures were upper limb impairment (Fugl-Meyer Arm Section) and function (TEMPA) and movement kinematics (trunk displacement, elbow extension; Optotrak, 10 trials) of a reach-to-grasp movement. Evaluations were repeated before, immediately after, and 1 month postintervention by blind evaluators. Results— TR training led to greater improvements in impairment and function compared with C. Improvements were accompanied by increased active joint range and were greater in initially more severe patients. In these patients, TR decreased trunk movement and increased elbow extension, whereas C had opposite effects (increased compensatory movements). In TR, changes in arm function were correlated with changes in arm and trunk kinematics. Conclusions— Treatment should be tailored to arm impairment severity with particular attention to controlling excessive trunk movements if the goal is to improve arm movement quality and function.

[1]  C. O. Kennedy A controlled trial , 1971, British Homeopathic Journal.

[2]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. , 1975, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[3]  R. Doll The controlled trial. , 1984, Postgraduate medical journal.

[4]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. , 1985, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[5]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Assessment of strength deficits in eight paretic upper extremity muscle groups of stroke patients with hemiplegia. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[6]  M. Brin,et al.  Assessment , 1992, Neurology.

[7]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measuring Physical Impairment and Disability With the Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment , 1993, Stroke.

[8]  S. Kilbreath,et al.  Task-specific training of reaching and manipulation , 1994 .

[9]  R. Hébert,et al.  Upper extremity performance test for the elderly (TEMPA): normative data and correlates with sensorimotor parameters. Test d'Evaluation des Membres Supérieurs de Personnes Agées. , 1995, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  M. Levin Should stereotypic movement synergies in hemiparetic patients be considered adaptive? , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  J. Konczak,et al.  The concept of “normal” movement and its consequences for therapy , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[12]  R. Keith Treatment strength in rehabilitation. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  E. Taub,et al.  Constraint Induced Movement Techniques To Facilitate Upper Extremity Use in Stroke Patients. , 1997, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[14]  P. Duncan Synthesis of Intervention Trials To Improve Motor Recovery following Stroke. , 1997, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[15]  J. H. van der Lee,et al.  Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. , 1999, Stroke.

[16]  C. Winstein,et al.  Motor learning after unilateral brain damage , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Generic and specific measurement of health-related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  M. Levin,et al.  Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[19]  M. Levin,et al.  Effect of Trunk Restraint on the Recovery of Reaching Movements in Hemiparetic Patients , 2001, Stroke.

[20]  R. Teasell,et al.  An Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation , 2003, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[21]  M. Levin,et al.  Arm reaching improvements with short-term practice depend on the severity of the motor deficit in stroke , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  C. Winstein,et al.  A randomized controlled comparison of upper-extremity rehabilitation strategies in acute stroke: A pilot study of immediate and long-term outcomes. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  M. Levin,et al.  Short-Term Effects of Practice With Trunk Restraint on Reaching Movements in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Controlled Trial , 2004, Stroke.

[24]  M. Levin,et al.  Compensation for distal impairments of grasping in adults with hemiparesis , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  A. Gentile,et al.  Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: task-related training versus progressive resistive exercise. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  R. Balasubramaniam,et al.  Disruption of coordination between arm, trunk, and center of pressure displacement in patients with hemiparesis. , 2004, Motor control.

[27]  P. Bach-y-Rita,et al.  Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[28]  E. Taub,et al.  Distributed form of constraint-induced movement therapy improves functional outcome and quality of life after stroke. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.