SYSTEMATIC REVIEW   Free access

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 February;58(1):94-107

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06893-3

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Motor effects of movement representation techniques and cross-education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ferran CUENCA-MARTÍNEZ ^{1, 2}, Santiago ANGULO-DÍAZ-PARREÑO ^{2, 3}, Xosé FEIJÓO-RUBIO ¹, Marta M. FERNÁNDEZ-SOLÍS ¹, José V. LEÓN-HERNÁNDEZ ^{1, 2}, Roy LA TOUCHE ^{1, 2, 4} ✉, Luis SUSO-MARTÍ ^{2, 5}

¹ Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; ² Motion in Brains Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience and Sciences of the Movement (INCIMOV), La Salle Higher Center for University Studies, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; ³ Faculty of Medicine, CEU San Pablo University, Madrid, Spain; ⁴ Institute of Neurosciences and Craniofacial Pain (INDCRAN), Madrid, Spain; ⁵ Department of Physiotherapy, CEU Cardenal Herrera University, CEU Universities, Valencia, Spain

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to assess the impact of movement representation techniques (MRT) through motor imagery (MI), action observation (AO) and visual mirror feedback (VMF) and cross-education training (CE) on strength, range of motion (ROM), speed, functional state and balance during experimental immobilization processes in healthy individuals, in patients with injuries that did not require surgery and in those with surgical processes that did or did not require immobilization.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched. Thirteen meta-analyses were conducted.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Regarding the immobilized participants, in the healthy individuals, MI showed significant results regarding maintenance of strength and ROM, with low-quality evidence. Regarding the process with no immobilization, VMF and MI techniques showed significant changes in maintaining ROM in patients with injury without surgery, with very low-quality evidence. Results had shown that MI demonstrated significantly higher maintenance of strength and speed in patients undergoing surgery, with low-quality evidence. No significant results were found in ROM. Low-quality evidence showed better results in AO plus usual care compared with usual treatment in isolation with respect to maintenance of functional state and balance. CE training demonstrated maintenance of strength in patients undergoing surgery, with moderate evidence; however, not in healthy experimentally immobilized individuals. VMF did not show significant results in maintaining ROM after surgery without immobilization, nor did MI in maintaining strength after surgery and immobilization.
CONCLUSIONS: MRT and CE training have been shown to have a significant impact on the improvement of various motor variables and on physical maintenance in general.

KEY WORDS: Motor skills; Rehabilitation; Muscle strength; Exercise therapy; Physical therapy modalities; Articular range of motion