查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 手部拉筋設備對慢性中風患者手部痙攣問題之療效=The Effect of a Hand-Stretching Device on Hand Spasticity in Chronic Stroke Patients |
---|---|
作 者 | 徐宛伶; 張維修; 連一潔; 馮紀慈; 周桂酉; | 書刊名 | 職能治療學會雜誌 |
卷 期 | 33:1 2015.06[民104.06] |
頁 次 | 頁98-117 |
專 輯 | 中風復健 |
分類號 | 415.822、415.822 |
關鍵詞 | 慢性中風患者; 手部痙攣; 手部拉筋設備; 改良式艾斯渥氏量表; 日常生活表現; Chronic stroke patients; Hand spasticity; Hand-stretching device; Modified Ashworth Scale; Performance of daily life; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究嘗試探討手部拉筋設備(hand-stretching device)介入中風患者手部痙攣問題之療效。本研究收取21位有手部痙攣問題(ModifiedAshworthScale,MAS≥1)之慢性中風患者,並隨機分配至實驗組(11人)與控制組(10人)。兩組皆接受1小時/天,5天/週,共3週的訓練。其中實驗組之訓練包含20分鐘之手部拉筋設備介入、40分鐘功能性訓練;而控制組則進行1小時的功能性訓練。介入效果使用MAS、Fugl-MeyerAssessment(FMA)、TheActionResearchArmTest(ARAT)、FunctionalIndependenceMeasure(FIM)、StokeImpactScale(SIS)等工具於介入前、中、後,及介入後1個月/3個月時評估,來了解手部拉筋設備之效果。結果發現於後測時,實驗組MAS分數明顯低於控制組(p=.02),進行組內比較也可發現實驗組後測的MAS分數較前測低(p=.06),控制組則否,顯示手部拉筋設備的介入可有效改善中風患者手部痙攣問題,效果也可持續至介入後1個月。但改善痙攣問題於動作功能及日常生活表現上未有顯著效益,推測原因可能是痙攣問題的改善對於慢性中風患者(尤其本研究所納入的患者平均發病病程為3.48±1.88年)動作與日常生活功能之改善效果有限;抑或本研究未納入嚴重痙攣之個案(MAS>3),無法真正呈現痙攣改善之效益。故為真正了解此設備的成效與痙攣問題對中風患者的影響,以及早期介入之重要性,未來需要納入各種痙攣程度與病程時間的中風患者來深入探討。 |
英文摘要 | Objective. This study attempted to investigate the effect of a hand-stretching device for treatment of hand spasticity in chronic stroke patients. Methods. This study recruited 21 stroke patients with hand spasticity problem (Modified Ashworth Scale , MAS ≥ 1) and randomly assigned them to the experimental group(EG)(11 patients) and control group (CG)(10 patients). Each groups received treatment for 1h/d and 5 d/wk for 3 weeks. EG accepted stretching device training for 20mins and functional training for 40mins; CG underwent only functional training for 60mins. The effect of intervention was assessed using the MAS, Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), The Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Stoke Impact Scale (SIS) in pre-, mid-, post-treatment, and two follow-up after intervention. Results. At post-treatment evaluation, MAS scores of EG were significantly lower than CG (p = .02). Within the EG , the MAS score of post-treatment were also lower than the MAS score of pre-treatment (p = .06). There was no significant improvement noted in functional evaluation both in EG and CG. Conclusion. The hand-stretching device was effective in relieving hand spasticity in chronic stroke patients, but it can’t improve the motor and daily life performance in our study. Because the stroke patients in our study were very chronic patients(onset time was 3.48 ± 1.88 years), and we didn’t include patients with severe spasticity, those would be the reasons why relieving hand spasticity showed limited improvement in motor and daily life performance in our patients. To realize the actually effect of hand-stretching device and the importance of earlier intervention, we need further study to investigate. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。