Stroke Rehabilitation

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of three exercise therapy approaches. Three groups of adult stroke patients (N = 131) participated in the study. The first group received conventional treatment that consisted of traditional exercises and functional activities. The treatment of the second group was based on proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation techniques. The third group was treated using the Bobath approach. The improvement of each patient was evaluated after six weeks of treatment in terms of functional gains in activities of daily living as measured using the Barthel index, changes in the muscle tone of the involved limbs as measured using a five-point ordinal scale, changes in the isolated motor control of the ankle and wrist as measured by tests of muscle strength and range of motion, and changes in the patients' ambulatory status as measured using a nominal scale of four categories. The therapeutic effects of exercise according to each of the three approaches were compared using descriptive and nonparametric statistical methods. No substantial advantage could be attributed to any one of the three therapeutic approaches.

Sarcopenia in stroke—facts and numbers on muscle loss accounting for disability after stroke

“…This currently under-represented aspect will need to be appreciated more thoroughly within an interdisciplinary concept of stroke rehabilitation. Certainly, physical activity in the form of exercise rehabilitation belongs to the standard therapy after stroke [31], prevention or restoring of muscle metabolic abnormalities will substantially contribute to this. Thus, a clinical study in older acute stroke patients revealed that nutritional supplementation within the first week in hospital has a beneficial effect for maintaining an adequate body mass and body composition [32].…”

Pathophysiology of Stroke Rehabilitation: The Natural Course of Clinical Recovery, Use-Dependent Plasticity and Rehabilitative Outcome

“…Yet interestingly, conventional treatment regimens based on an unspecific peripheral modulation of motor tone can lead to neurofunctional change [106]. Nonetheless, clinical effects remain insubstantial, independent of the time of treatment onset, be it early on [107] or in later stages of recovery [108]. On the other hand, if interventions are more closely related to the ‘relearning’ of motor functions, a certain superiority to traditional schemes is seen [109].…”

Using clinical and robotic assessment tools to examine the feasibility of pairing tDCS with upper extremity physical therapy in patients with stroke and TBI: A consideration-of-concept pilot study

“…Follow-up periods have ranged from one week (Lindenberg et al, 2010; Nair et al, 2011) to three months (Khedr et al, 2013). As a result, numerous questions exist regarding the role of tDCS as an adjunct to PT over the course of an entire plan of care, which for UE PT, typically includes approximately 960 minutes dispersed over 24 treatment sessions (Birkenmeier, Prager, & Lang, 2010; Chang, Tung, Wu, Huang, & Su, 2007; Dickstein, Hocherman, Pillar, & Shaham, 1986; Kimberley, Samargia, Moore, Shakya, & Lang, 2010; Lang, MacDonald, & Gnip, 2007; Wang, Zhao, Zhu, Li, & Meng, 2011). Is providing stimulation throughout an entire plan of care feasible?…”