And just what the hell good does quantifying non-use do for getting survivors recovered? SOLVE THE FUCKING 100% RECOVERY PROBLEM instead of this useless crapola! I'd have you all fired.
Oops, I'm not playing by the polite rules of Dale Carnegie, 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
Telling supposedly smart stroke medical persons they know nothing about stroke is a no-no even if it is true.
Politeness will never solve anything in stroke. Yes, I'm a bomb thrower and proud of it. Someday a stroke 'leader' will try to ream me out for making them look bad by being truthful, I look forward to that day.
The latest here:
Quantifying Nonuse in Chronic Stroke Patients: A Study Into Paretic, Nonparetic, and Bimanual Upper-Limb Use in Daily Life
Published:March 29, 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.016
Abstract
Michielsen
ME, Selles RW, Stam HJ, Ribbers GM, Bussmann JB. Quantifying nonuse in
chronic stroke patients: a study into paretic, nonparetic, and bimanual
upper-limb use in daily life.
Objective
To quantify uni- and bimanual upper-limb use in patients with chronic stroke in daily life compared with healthy controls.
Design
Cross-sectional observational study.
Setting
Outpatient rehabilitation center.
Participants
Patients with chronic stroke (n=38) and healthy controls (n=18).
Intervention
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
Upper-limb
use in daily life was measured with an accelerometry-based upper-limb
activity monitor, an accelerometer based measurement device. Unimanual
use of the paretic and the nonparetic side and bimanual upper-limb use
were measured for a period of 24 hours. Outcomes were expressed in terms
of both duration and intensity.
Results
Patients
used their unaffected limb much more than their affected limb (5.3h vs
2.4h), while controls used both limbs a more equal amount of time (5.4h
vs 5.1h). Patients used their paretic side less than controls used their
nondominant side and their nonparetic side more than controls their
dominant side. The intensity with which patients used their paretic side
was lower than that with which controls used their nondominant side,
while that of the nonparetic side was higher than that of the dominant
side of controls. Finally, patients used their paretic side almost
exclusively in bimanual activities. During bimanual activities, the
intensity with which they used their affected side was much lower than
that of the nonaffected side.
Conclusion
Our
data show considerable nonuse of the paretic side, both in duration and
in intensity, and both during unimanual and bimanual activities in
patients with chronic stroke. Patients do compensate for this with
increased use of the nonparetic side.
No comments:
Post a Comment