Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2014 October;50(5) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2014 October;50(5):505-14

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE

A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2014 October;50(5):505-14

language: English

Is CIMT a rehabilitative practice for everyone? Predictive factors and feasibility

Fabbrini S. 1, Casati G. 2, Bonaiuti D. 2

1 Geriatric Institute “P. Redaelli”, Milan, Italy;
2 Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Department, S. Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy


FULL TEXT  


BACKGROUND: Constraint Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT) in hemiplegic patient is an efficacious method for upper limb rehabilitation.
AIM: To verify the applicability of CIMT in post stroke inpatients and to verify the predictive value of some clinical and functional independent variables on the outcomes, in order to identify a population of subjects to which this technique can be more effective.
DESIGN: Non-controlled clinical study.
SETTING: Seven Italian, non-experimental, Rehabilitation Departments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All post-stroke inpatients (subacute and chronic), consecutively admitted in 7 Rehabilitation Departments, were screened according to our inclusion criteria. The eligible population was assessed according to selected clinical and functional variables at the baseline, and it was evaluated with Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT-FAS and WMFT-PTT) and Motor Activity Log (MAL-AOU and MAL-QOM), before treatment (T0), after treatment (T1) and at a 3-month follow up (T2). Patients underwent 2 weeks of CIMT from T0.
RESULTS: Of the 600 inpatients screened, 44 were admitted in the CIMT protocol and were evaluated at T0 and T1; just 24 completed the assessment at T2. At the end of treatment NIHSS and Motricity Index (MI) were predictive factors of MAL scores, while Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Modified Barthel Inedx (MBI) and MI were predictive factors of WMFT scores. At the follow up NIHSS and GDS remained predictive factors of MAL scores, and MBI was predictive of WMFT FAS score.
CONCLUSION: CIMT efficacy did not result to be related to patient’s age, mild cognitive deficit, time since stroke. Depression and pinch ability are the main predictors of motor recovery. Despite the demonstrated efficacy, CIMT feasibility still needs to be demonstrated, considering the low percentage (6,5%) of eligibility among all stroke inpatients.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: CIMT requires high costs and resources; therefore it is valuable to know the predictive factors which help select the eligible patients. It is then useful to recognize the risk factors of developing Learned Non Use after stroke.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail

gloria.casati@gmail.com