Quantifying nonuse DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GET SURVIVORS RECOVERED! I'd fire everyone involved in this useless shit.
Quantifying Nonuse in Chronic Stroke Patients: A Study Into Paretic, Nonparetic, and Bimanual Upper-Limb Use in Daily Life
2012, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Marian E. Michielsen, MSc
†
, Ruud W. Selles, PhD, Henk J. Stam, MD, PhD Gerard M. Ribbers, MD, PhD, Johannes B. Bussmann, PhD
ABSTRACT. Michielsen ME, Selles RW, Stam HJ, RibbersGM, Bussmann JB. Quantifying nonuse in chronic stroke pa-tients: a study into paretic, nonparetic, and bimanual upper-limb use in daily life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;xx:xxx.
Objective:
To quantify uni- and bimanual upper-limb use inpatients with chronic stroke in daily life compared with healthycontrols.
Design:
Cross-sectional observational study.
Setting:
Outpatient rehabilitation center.
Participants:
Patients with chronic stroke (n
38) and healthycontrols (n
18).
Intervention:
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures:
Upper-limb use in daily life wasmeasured with an accelerometry-based upper-limb activitymonitor, an accelerometer based measurement device. Uni-manual use of the paretic and the nonparetic side and bimanualupper-limb use were measured for a period of 24 hours. Out-comes were expressed in terms of both duration and intensity.
Results:
Patients used their unaffected limb much more thantheir affected limb (5.3h vs 2.4h), while controls used bothlimbs a more equal amount of time (5.4h vs 5.1h). Patients usedtheir paretic side less than controls used their nondominant sideand their nonparetic side more than controls their dominantside. The intensity with which patients used their paretic sidewas lower than that with which controls used their nondomi-nant side, while that of the nonparetic side was higher than thatof the dominant side of controls. Finally, patients used theirparetic side almost exclusively in bimanual activities. Duringbimanual activities, the intensity with which they used theiraffected side was much lower than that of the nonaffected side.
Conclusion:
Our data show considerable nonuse of the pa-retic side, both in duration and in intensity, and both duringunimanual and bimanual activities in patients with chronicstroke. Patients do compensate for this with increased use of the nonparetic side.
Key Words:
Ambulatory monitoring; Motor activity; Reha-bilitation; Stroke; Upper extremity.©
2012 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
†
, Ruud W. Selles, PhD, Henk J. Stam, MD, PhD Gerard M. Ribbers, MD, PhD, Johannes B. Bussmann, PhD
ABSTRACT. Michielsen ME, Selles RW, Stam HJ, RibbersGM, Bussmann JB. Quantifying nonuse in chronic stroke pa-tients: a study into paretic, nonparetic, and bimanual upper-limb use in daily life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;xx:xxx.
Objective:
To quantify uni- and bimanual upper-limb use inpatients with chronic stroke in daily life compared with healthycontrols.
Design:
Cross-sectional observational study.
Setting:
Outpatient rehabilitation center.
Participants:
Patients with chronic stroke (n
38) and healthycontrols (n
18).
Intervention:
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures:
Upper-limb use in daily life wasmeasured with an accelerometry-based upper-limb activitymonitor, an accelerometer based measurement device. Uni-manual use of the paretic and the nonparetic side and bimanualupper-limb use were measured for a period of 24 hours. Out-comes were expressed in terms of both duration and intensity.
Results:
Patients used their unaffected limb much more thantheir affected limb (5.3h vs 2.4h), while controls used bothlimbs a more equal amount of time (5.4h vs 5.1h). Patients usedtheir paretic side less than controls used their nondominant sideand their nonparetic side more than controls their dominantside. The intensity with which patients used their paretic sidewas lower than that with which controls used their nondomi-nant side, while that of the nonparetic side was higher than thatof the dominant side of controls. Finally, patients used theirparetic side almost exclusively in bimanual activities. Duringbimanual activities, the intensity with which they used theiraffected side was much lower than that of the nonaffected side.
Conclusion:
Our data show considerable nonuse of the pa-retic side, both in duration and in intensity, and both duringunimanual and bimanual activities in patients with chronicstroke. Patients do compensate for this with increased use of the nonparetic side.
Key Words:
Ambulatory monitoring; Motor activity; Reha-bilitation; Stroke; Upper extremity.©
2012 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
No comments:
Post a Comment