Hesse S, Werner C, Pohl M, Mehrholz J, Puzich U, Krebs H I
Klinik Berlin, Neurological Rehabilitation, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Oct;87(10):779-88. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318186b4bc.
To test whether training with a new mechanical arm trainer leads to better outcomes than electrical stimulation of the paretic wrist extensors in subacute stroke patients with severe upper limb paresis. Electrical stimulation is a standard and reimbursable form of therapy in Germany.
Randomized controlled trial of 54 inpatients enrolled 4-8 wks from stroke onset, mean upper-extremity subsection of Fugl-Meyer assessment (0-66) at admission less than 18. In addition to standard care, all patients practiced 20-30 mins arm trainer or electrical stimulation every workday for 6 wks, totaling 30 sessions. Primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer assessment, secondary outcomes were the Box and Block test, the Medical Research Council and the modified Ashworth scale, blindly assessed at enrollment, after 6 wks, and at 3-mo follow-up.
Both groups were homogeneous at study onset. Shoulder pain occurred in two arm trainer patients. The primary Fugl-Meyer assessment outcome improved for both groups over time (P < 0.001), but this improvement did not differ between groups. The initial (terminal) mean Fugl-Meyer assessment scores were 8.8 +/- 4.8 (19.2 +/- 14.5) for the arm trainer and 8.6 +/- 3.5 (13.6 +/- 7.9) for the electrical stimulation group. No patient could transport a block initially, but at completion significantly more arm trainer patients were able to transport at least three blocks (five vs. zero, P = 0.023). No significant differences were observed between the groups on the secondary Box and Block outcome at follow-up (eight vs. four patients). All Box and Block responders had an initial Fugl-Meyer assessment > or =10.
Arm trainer training did not lead to a superior primary outcome over electrical stimulation training. However, "good performers" on the secondary outcome seemed to benefit more from the arm trainer training.
测试对于患有严重上肢麻痹的亚急性中风患者,使用新型机械臂训练器进行训练是否比电刺激患侧腕伸肌能带来更好的效果。在德国,电刺激是一种标准且可报销的治疗方式。
对54名发病4 - 8周的住院患者进行随机对照试验,入院时Fugl - Meyer评估上肢部分(0 - 66分)平均低于18分。除标准护理外,所有患者在每个工作日进行20 - 30分钟的机械臂训练或电刺激,持续6周,共30次训练。主要结局指标为Fugl - Meyer评估,次要结局指标为方块积木测试、医学研究委员会肌力分级和改良Ashworth量表,在入组时、6周后以及3个月随访时进行盲法评估。
两组在研究开始时具有同质性。两名接受机械臂训练的患者出现肩部疼痛。随着时间推移,两组的主要Fugl - Meyer评估结局均有所改善(P < 0.001),但组间改善情况无差异。机械臂训练组初始(最终)Fugl - Meyer评估平均得分分别为8.8±4.8(19.2±14.5),电刺激组为8.6±3.5(13.6±7.9)。最初没有患者能够搬运积木,但训练结束时,显著更多接受机械臂训练的患者能够搬运至少三块积木(5例对0例,P = 0.023)。随访时,两组在次要的方块积木测试结局上无显著差异(8例对4例)。所有在方块积木测试中有反应的患者初始Fugl - Meyer评估均≥10分。
与电刺激训练相比,机械臂训练并未带来更优的主要结局。然而,在次要结局方面,“表现良好者”似乎从机械臂训练中获益更多。