4.7 Article

Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke

期刊

STROKE
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 2390-2395

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.31.10.2390

关键词

hemiplegia; motor activity; physical function; rehabilitation

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [NIA 1P60 AG12583, R29 AG14487-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Chronic upper extremity hemiparesis is a leading cause of functional disability after stroke. We investigated the hypothesis that bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing (BATRAC) will improve motor function in the hemiparetic arm of stroke patients. Methods-In this single group pilot study we determined the effects of 6 weeks of BATRAC on 14 patients with chronic hemiparetic stroke (median time after stroke, 30 months) immediately after training and at 2 months after training. Four 5-minute periods per session (3 times per week) of BATRAC were performed with the use of a custom-designed arm training machine. Results-The patients showed significant and potentially durable increases in the following: FugI-Meyer Upper Extremity Motor Performance Test of impairment (P<0.0004), Wolf Motor Function Test (performance time measure, P<0.02), and University of Maryland Arm Questionnaire for Stroke measuring daily use of the hemiparetic arm (P<0.002). Isometric strength improved in elbow flexion (P<0.05) and wrist flexion (P<0.02) for the paretic arm and in elbow flexion (P<0.02) and wrist extension (P<0.02) for the nonparetic arm. Active range of motion improved for paretic-side shoulder extension (P<0.01), wrist flexion (P<0.004), and thumb opposition (P<0.002), and passive range of motion improved for paretic wrist flexion (P<0.03). Conclusions-Six weeks of BATRAC improves functional motor performance of the paretic upper extremity as well as a few changes in isometric strength and range of motion. These benefits are largely sustained at 8 weeks after training cessation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据