Quel de Oliveira Camila, Refshauge Kathryn, Middleton James, de Jong Lysanne, Davis Glen M
1 Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia .
2 John Walsh Center for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute, Northern Sydney Local Health District and Sydney Medical School Northern, The University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia .
J Neurotrauma. 2017 May 1;34(9):1726-1743. doi: 10.1089/neu.2016.4558. Epub 2016 Dec 20.
The aim of this study was to review the literature about the effects of activity-based therapy (ABT) interventions on mobility, functional independence, and quality of life for people with a spinal cord injury (SCI). A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials was performed, including adults with a non-progressive SCI at any level. The intervention of interest was ABT, defined as any intervention that sought to improve muscle activation or sensory function below the level of injury in the spinal cord and does not rely on compensatory mechanisms for improving function. The comparison was either no intervention or conventional physical interventions targeted to regions above the level of injury. The outcome measures were quality-of-life questionnaires, mobility assessments, and functional independence scales. Nineteen trials were included in this systematic review. Three compared ABT to no intervention and 16 to conventional physical rehabilitation. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using the PEDro scale as moderate. Six studies investigated the effects of ABT interventions for the upper limbs, 11 investigated gait-related interventions, and two applied multi-modal interventions. Compared with no intervention, the meta-analysis found that ABT was not more effective for improving independence or lower limb mobility, but conferred a large positive effect on upper limb function. Compared with conventional physical interventions, there was no significant effect of ABT on lower limb mobility, independence, or quality of life; however, it had positive effects on upper limbs. In conclusion, there is evidence that ABT can improve independence and functional ability when applied to the upper limbs in people with SCI. However, it is not superior to conventional physical interventions when applied to the lower limbs.
本研究的目的是回顾关于基于活动的疗法(ABT)干预对脊髓损伤(SCI)患者的移动性、功能独立性和生活质量影响的文献。我们进行了一项对随机和非随机试验的系统评价及荟萃分析,纳入了任何节段非进行性SCI的成年人。感兴趣的干预措施是ABT,定义为任何旨在改善脊髓损伤水平以下肌肉激活或感觉功能且不依赖补偿机制来改善功能的干预措施。比较组为无干预或针对损伤水平以上区域的传统物理干预。结局指标为生活质量问卷、移动性评估和功能独立性量表。本系统评价纳入了19项试验。其中3项将ABT与无干预进行比较,16项将ABT与传统物理康复进行比较。使用PEDro量表评估试验的方法学质量为中等。6项研究调查了ABT干预对上肢的影响,11项研究了与步态相关的干预,2项应用了多模式干预。荟萃分析发现,与无干预相比,ABT在改善独立性或下肢移动性方面并不更有效,但对上肢功能有较大的积极影响。与传统物理干预相比,ABT对下肢移动性、独立性或生活质量没有显著影响;然而,它对上肢有积极影响。总之,有证据表明,ABT应用于SCI患者的上肢时可改善独立性和功能能力。然而,应用于下肢时,它并不优于传统物理干预。