Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

The effect of a wrist-hand stretching device for spasticity in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients [with consumer summary]
Jang WH, Kwon HC, Yoo KJ, Jang SH
European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2016 Feb;52(1):65-71
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: The majority of these stretching devices have focused on spasticity of the leg and only a few devices have been developed for spasticity of the wrist and hand. In addition, most of these devices were large and complicated, with less easy applicability for personal use. AIM: To investigate the effect of a stretching device for spasticity of the wrist and hand in chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. DESIGN: Prospective single blind randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatients. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (11 patients) or the control group (10 patients). The stretching device consisted of a circular shaped plastic plate and five holders to immobilize the fingers. In position 1, finger tips were facing forward, position 2 was 90 degree external rotation from position 1, and position 3 was 90 degree external rotation from position 2. Each position was maintained for 4 minutes and a rest period of 1 minute was given, therefore, one session was performed for 14 minutes. The stretching program was conducted 3 sessions/day, 6 days/week for 4 weeks. Spasticity (modified Ashworth scale (MAS)) and motor function (Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA), active range of motion (AROM)) of affected wrist and hand were assessed three times (first assessment; pre, second assessment; post 2 weeks, third assessment; post 4 weeks). RESULTS: In the intervention group, significant differences in the wrist and hand MAS and FMA were observed between three assessment times (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences in the wrist and hand AROM were observed between three assessment times (p > 0.05). In the control group, no differences in MAS, FMA, and AROM were observed between three assessment times (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Findings showed that this stretching device was effective in terms of relieving spasticity and functional recovery.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help