Bobath Concept versus constraint-induced movement therapy to improve arm functional recovery in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Clinical rehabilitation Vol. 26; no. 8; pp. 705 - 715
• Main Authors: Huseyinsinoglu, Burcu Ersoz, Ozdincler, Arzu Razak, Krespi, Yakup
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.08.2012; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Arm; Clinical trials; Exercise Movement Techniques - methods; Female; Humans; Intervention; Male; Middle Aged; Motor activity; Motor performance; Movement therapy; Patients; Physical therapy; Randomized controlled trials; Recovery; Recovery of Function; Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation - methods; Single-Blind Method; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Strokes; Istanbul Turkey; Turkey; Bobath Concept; stroke recovery; rehabilitation; arm; constraint-induced movement therapy
• ISSN: 0269-2155; 1477-0873; 1477-0873
• DOI: 10.1177/0269215511431903

Objective: To compare the effects of the Bobath Concept and constraint-induced movement therapy on arm functional recovery among stroke patients with a high level of function on the affected side. Design: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient physiotherapy department of a stroke unit. Subjects: A total of 24 patients were randomized to constraint-induced movement therapy or Bobath Concept group. Intervention: The Bobath Concept group was treated for 1 hour whereas the constraint-induced movement therapy group received training for 3 hours per day during 10 consecutive weekdays. Main measures: Main measures were the Motor Activity Log-28, the Wolf Motor Function Test, the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients and the Functional Independence Measure. Results: The two groups were found to be homogeneous based on demographic variables and baseline measurements. Significant improvements were seen after treatment only in the ‘Amount of use’ and ‘Quality of movement’ subscales of the Motor Activity Log-28 in the constraint-induced movement therapy group over the the Bobath Concept group (P = 0.003; P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in Wolf Motor Function Test ‘Functional ability’ (P = 0.137) and ‘Performance time’ (P = 0.922), Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients (P = 0.947) and Functional Independence Measure scores (P = 0.259) between the two intervention groups. Conclusions: Constraint-induced movement therapy and the Bobath Concept have similar efficiencies in improving functional ability, speed and quality of movement in the paretic arm among stroke patients with a high level of function. Constraint-induced movement therapy seems to be slightly more efficient than the Bobath Concept in improving the amount and quality of affected arm use.