Assistive technologies, including orthotic devices, for the management of contractures in adults after a stroke.

BACKGROUND

Contractures (reduced range of motion and increased stiffness of a joint) are a frequent complication of stroke. Contractures can interfere with function and cause cosmetic and hygiene problems. Preventing and managing contractures might improve rehabilitation and recovery after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of assistive technologies for the management of contractures in adults after a stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and three trials registers in May 2022. We also searched for reference lists of relevant studies, contacted experts in the field, and ran forward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies (RCTs) that used electrical, mechanical, or electromechanical devices to manage contractures in adults with stroke were eligible for inclusion in this review. We planned to include studies that compared assistive technologies against no treatment, routine therapy, or another assistive technology.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (working in pairs) selected all studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were passive joint range of motion (PROM) with and without standardised force, and indirect measures of PROM. The secondary outcomes included hygiene. We also wanted to evaluate the adverse effects of assistive technology. Effects were expressed as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five of these were meta-analysed; they included 252 adults treated in acute and subacute rehabilitation settings. All studies compared assistive technology with routine therapy; one study also compared assistive technology with no treatment, but we were unable to obtain separate data for stroke participants. The assistive technologies used in the studies were electrical stimulation, splinting, positioning using a hinged board, and active repetitive motor training using a non-robotic device with electrical stimulation. Only one study applied stretching to end range. Treatment duration ranged from four to 12 weeks. The overall risk of bias was high for all studies. We are uncertain whether: • electrical stimulation to wrist extensors improves passive range of wrist extension (MD -7.30°, 95% CI -18.26° to 3.66°; 1 study, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence); • a non-robotic device with electrical stimulation to shoulder flexors improves passive range of shoulder flexion (MD -9.00°, 95% CI -25.71° to 7.71°; 1 study; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence); • assistive technology improves passive range of wrist extension with standardised force (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.29; four studies, 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence): • a non-robotic device with electrical stimulation to elbow extensors improves passive range of elbow extension (MD 0.41°, 95% CI -0.15° to 0.97°; 1 study, 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported the adverse outcome of pain when using a hinged board to apply stretch to wrist and finger flexors, and another study reported skin breakdown when using a thumb splint. No studies reported hygiene or indirect measures of PROM.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only seven small RCTs met the eligibility criteria of this review, and all provided very low-certainty evidence. Consequently, we cannot draw firm conclusions on the effects of assistive technology compared with routine therapy or no therapy. It was also difficult to confirm whether there is a risk of harm associated with treatment using assistive technology. Future studies should apply adequate treatment intensity (i.e. magnitude and the duration of stretch) and use valid and reliable outcome measures. Such studies might better identify the role of assistive technology in the management of contractures in adults after a stroke.