4.2 Article

Whole-body intensive rehabilitation is feasible and effective in chronic stroke survivors: A retrospective data analysis

Journal

TOPICS IN STROKE REHABILITATION
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 247-255

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1310/tsr1503-247

Keywords

cerebrovascular accident; chronic; comprehensive; function; intensive; recovery; rehabilitation; stroke; training

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Upper extremity (UE) intensive repetitive training, locomotor training, and functional strength training, delivered in isolation, promote neural plasticity and functional recovery after stroke. However, the effectiveness of a comprehensive whole-body approach combining these interventions has not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this retrospective data analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of intensive, comprehensive rehabilitation for a heterogeneous population of chronic stroke survivors in a community clinic setting. Method: Whole-body intensive rehabilitation (3-6 hours/day, 4-5 days/week, >= 2 weeks) consisted of locomotor, balance, and transfer training; progressive resistive strengthening exercise; and repetitive task-specific UE practice. Outcome measures were collected from all patients participating in the program between March 2003 and January 2008 who were diagnosed with a stroke >= 12 months prior to treatment initiation (N = 35). Results: Significant improvements in function were observed as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Box and Block test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test (TUG), and 6-minute walk test. Conclusion: Whole-body intensive rehabilitation is an effective and feasible approach to promote recovery in chronic stroke survivors with moderate to severe deficits. Further research is necessary to confirm these results in a more controlled environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available