Stroke
Conditions
Keywords
exercise, rhythmic movement, discrete movement
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to verify the additional effects of rhythmic specific training, discrete specific training additional to conventional therapy on the upper limb after chronic stroke subjects on the outcomes: motor control and functionality.
Detailed description
Seventy-five patients will be randomized into three groups to receive conventional therapy, consisting of a combination of mobility exercises joint, muscle stretching, strength training, motor coordination exercises, unilateral and bilateral motor tasks as well as oriented tasks training upper limb with a focus on functional tasks. The other groups will receive additional intervention consisting of aiming movement practice according two different protocols: discrete movements to targets placed in different directions and distances; and rhythmic movements also to targets placed in different directions and distances. Both additional interventional interventions will be conducted for 30 minutes over a 5 week-period (total: 10 sessions). Clinical outcomes (motor control), functional and kinematic will be collected at baseline and at five weeks. Functional results will be collected at the beginning, after 5 weeks and 3 months after randomization. Data will be collected by a blinded assessor on patients' allocation group. All statistical analyzes will be carried out following the principles of intention to treat analysis and differences between groups will be performed using linear mixed models.
Interventions
OTHERConventional Physical Therapy
Combination of joint mobility exercises, specific exercises for muscle strength and motor coordination exercises, unilateral and bilateral motor tasks as well as task-oriented training of the upper limb with a focus on functional tasks. Patients will receive 10 sessions of treatment over a period of five weeks (two sessions/week)
OTHERDiscrete movement training group
Aiming movements training with the affected upper limb (unilateral training) or both limbs (bilateral training) on the surface of a table. The starting point of the movement and its target are predetermined. Targets will be placed in different directions and distances from the starting point and the therapist ask for variations on speed and assistance, if necessary.
OTHERRhythmic movement training group
Aiming movements training with the affected upper limb (unilateral training) or both limbs (bilateral training) on the surface of a table. The movement begins in a predetermined starting point, directed to a target and returns to the starting point. This activity is performed several times with rhythmic movements. Targets will be placed in different directions and distances from the starting point and the therapist ask for variations on speed and assistance, if necessary.
Sponsors
Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
patients who participate in the survey, adult stroke survivors (\>18 years), with primary diagnosis of first-ever unilateral stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), stroke experienced \> 6 months prior to study enrollment and score ≥ 20 on the Folstein Mini Mental Status Examination.
Exclusion criteria
patients with excessive pain in the paretic hand, arm or shoulder excessive spasticity at the paretic elbow and wrist as defined as a score of 4 on the Modified Ashworth Spasticity Scale and upper limb comorbidities that could limit their functional recovery (e.g., arthritis, pain, other neurological disorders).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) | Five weeks after randomization and 3 months after randomization | Functionality: questionnaire which evaluates functionality. In this study will be evaluated four areas (arm muscle strength, hand function, activities of daily living and social participation)(Duncan et al., 1999). Each domain is scored from 1 to 5 (1 point corresponds to the worst possible outcome and 5 points to the best result). For the four areas the lowest possible score is 28 points and the highest is 125 points. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Motor Activity Log (MAL) | Five weeks and 3 months after randomization | Arm function: individuals are asked to rate Quality of Movement (QOM) and Amount of Movement (AOM) during 30 daily functional tasks (original MAL) (Uswatte et al., 2005). Items scored on a 6-point ordinal scale, where 0 corresponds to the weaker arm was not sued at all for that activity (never). Patients with a score 5 show the ability to use the weaker arm for that activity was as good as before the stroke (normal). |
| Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale | Five weeks after randomization | Motor control: this scale assesses sensorimotor function of upper limb, with score 0-66 points with scores 0-66 points for motor function and 0-126 points for sensory-motor function (Fugl-Meyer, 1975). A higher score is better motor function. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kinematics assessment | Five weeks after randomization | Functional capacity: It will be used an experimental apparatus that analyzes the motor behavior the aiming movement (Ribeiro et al., 2014). They will evaluate the movement time (measured in milliseconds), reaction time (in milliseconds) and smoothness (expressed in units of motion). The movement time is the time interval between the beginning and the end of the movement. Reaction time is defined as the time between the start of the imperative stimulus to the beginning of the movement. The smoothness is evaluated by computing the number of times the acceleration zero crossing (positive to negative and vice versa). The resultant variable error (in centimeters) is a measure of variability for both the medial-lateral direction as anteroposterior, assessing the accuracy to hit the target. |
| Grip strength | Five weeks after randomization | Body function and structure: it will measure the strength of grip and pinch through dynamometer. The results will be presented in kilogram-force (Kgf) (Mathiowetz et al., 1985) |
| Modified Ashworth Spasticity Scale | Five weeks after randomization | Body function and structure: they will be assessed flexors elbow, wrist and fingers, and forearm pronators. A measurement scale from 0 to 4 points, with 0 representing normal muscle tone and 4 is the highest possible degree of spasticity (Bohannon and Smith, 1987) |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Primary ContactSandra R Alouche, PhD
Backup ContactLeonardo OP Costa, PhD
Outcome results
None listed