1 / 10

Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy

Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy. In the treatment of children with hemiplegic CP. Why CIMT. Reduced UE functioning Unilateral motor impairment Sensory abnormalities Weak grasp Loss of fine-sequencing and of movement Loss of fine motor skills Associated and mirror movements

verlee
Télécharger la présentation

Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy In the treatment of children with hemiplegic CP

  2. Why CIMT • Reduced UE functioning • Unilateral motor impairment • Sensory abnormalities • Weak grasp • Loss of fine-sequencing and of movement • Loss of fine motor skills • Associated and mirror movements • Retention of grasp reflex and spasticity (Brown 1987, Eliasson, 1995, Eliasson 2000)

  3. Functional Impairment • Learned non-use • Use of non-affected hand even when non dominant • Further impairment h muscle tone Poor motor control i ROM, strength, and delayed skeletal maturation (Roberts 1994, Scrutton, 2004)

  4. Review • 1966-2006 • 214 references; • 26 potentially relevant articles; • 23 excluded • 3 trial articles included • 1 RCT; CIMT; 18 children • 1 CCT; mCIMT; 41 children • 1 RCT; Forced method; 31 children

  5. Types of Treatment • CIMT (bivalve cast 21 days; 6 hours/day shaping) vs traditional services groups • mCIMT (mitt for 2 hours/day; 60 days; 2 hours/day motor control tx) vs traditional tx services • Forced use protocol (short arm cast for 6 weeks no other tx) vs traditional treatment

  6. Review • Children 7months to 8 years • Different outcome measures • Unable to blind • Did not pool data

  7. Review • Small sample size so possible not to find statistical differences • Indications of clinical significance • No support for super intense protocol • Argument between in home and in clinic treatment needs to be further assessed • Multiple factors could be related to + CIMT outcome

  8. Implication • CIMT should be considered experimental • Need more research • Level of intensity • Valid & reliable outcome measures • Least invasive, most family friendly • Cost effective • At what age is it most appropriate

  9. Impact of Treatment/My Take on it • Shown to have clinical relevance • “sexy treatment” • Restoration vs adaptation • Very worthwhile to explore

  10. Group Discussion

More Related