This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/1/186    most recent 01.STR.0000196940.20446.c9v1 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 Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Michaelsen, S. M. Articles by Levin, M. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Michaelsen, S. M. Articles by Levin, M. F. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Exercise/exercise testing/rehabilitation Rehabilitation, Stroke

(Stroke. 2006;37:186.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Task-Specific Training With Trunk Restraint on Arm Recovery in Stroke

Randomized Control Trial

From the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation (S.M.M., R.D., M.F.L.), Montreal, Canada; the School of Rehabilitation (S.M.M.), University of Montreal, Canada; and the School of Physical and Occupational Therapy (M.F.L.), McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Correspondence to Mindy F. Levin, PhD, Director, Physical Therapy Program, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, 3654 Prom. Sir William Osler, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1Y5. E-mail mindy.levin{at}mcgill.ca

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.

Key Words: hemiplegia • rehabilitation • therapy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. K.-l. Chan, R. K.-y. Tong, and K. Y.-k. Chung Bilateral Upper Limb Training With Functional Electric Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 357 - 365. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. F. Levin, J. A. Kleim, and S. L. Wolf What Do Motor "Recovery" and "Compensation" Mean in Patients Following Stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 313 - 319. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. L. Woodbury, D. R. Howland, T. E. McGuirk, S. B. Davis, C. R. Senesac, S. Kautz, and L. G. Richards Effects of Trunk Restraint Combined With Intensive Task Practice on Poststroke Upper Extremity Reach and Function: A Pilot Study Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2009; 23(1): 78 - 91. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Thielman, T. Kaminski, and A.M. Gentile Rehabilitation of Reaching After Stroke: Comparing 2 Training Protocols Utilizing Trunk Restraint Neurorehabil Neural Repair, November 1, 2008; 22(6): 697 - 705. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. N. Barker, S. G. Brauer, and R. G. Carson Training of Reaching in Stroke Survivors With Severe and Chronic Upper Limb Paresis Using a Novel Nonrobotic Device: A Randomized Clinical Trial Stroke, June 1, 2008; 39(6): 1800 - 1807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M Wagner, J. A Rhodes, and C. Patten Reproducibility and Minimal Detectable Change of Three-Dimensional Kinematic Analysis of Reaching Tasks in People With Hemiparesis After Stroke Physical Therapy, May 1, 2008; 88(5): 652 - 663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.C. Cirstea and M.F. Levin Improvement of Arm Movement Patterns and Endpoint Control Depends on Type of Feedback During Practice in Stroke Survivors Neurorehabil Neural Repair, October 1, 2007; 21(5): 398 - 411. [Abstract] [PDF]