Download PDF
neuroreha 2011; 3(04): 177-183
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1295556
Schwerpunkt Hand-Arm-Aktivität: Aus der Praxis
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Forced-Use-Therapie, Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT), bilaterales und bimanuelles Training

Susanna Freivogel
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 December 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Forced-Use-Therapie, Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT), bilaterales und bimanuelles Training sind vielversprechende Therapiemethoden in der neurologischen Rehabilitation. Doch worin genau liegt der Unterschied und welche Patienten eignen sich für welche Methode? Das erklärt Susanna Freivogel im vorliegenden Artikel und bietet somit eine praxisnahe Grundlage für die Arbeit am Patienten.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth-scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy 1987; 67: 206-207
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Brogårdh C, Sjölund BH. Constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a pilot study on effects of small group training and of extended mitt use. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 218-227
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Charles J, Gordon AM. Development of hand-arm bimanual intensive training (HABIT) for improving bimanual coordination in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Med Child Neurol 2006; 48: 931-936
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Demeurisse G, Demol O, Robaye E. Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia. Eur Neurol 1980; 19: 382-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dettmers C et al. Lektionen aus dem Taub-Training. Implikationen für die moderne Rehabilitation. In: Dettmers C, Weiller C, (Hrsg.) Up-date Neurologische Rehabiltation. Bad Honnef: Hippocampus Verlag; 2005: 84-98
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Hammer AM, Lindmark B. Effects of forced use on arm function in the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized, clinical pilot study. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 526-539
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Huang HH, Fetters L, Hale J et al. Bound for success: a systematic review of constraint-induced movement therapy in children with cerebral palsy supports improved arm and hand use. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 1126-1141
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Johansen-Berg H, Dawes H, Guy C et al. Correlation between motor improvements and altered fMRI activity after rehabilitative therapy. Brain 2002; 125: 2731-2742
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Leung DP, Ng AK, Fong KN. Effect of small group treatment of the modified constraint induced movement therapy for clients with chronic stroke in a community setting. Hum Mov Sci 2009; 28: 798-808
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Liepert J, Bauder H, Wolfgang HR et al. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 2000; 31: 1210-1216
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liepert J, Miltner WH, Bauder H et al. Motor cortex plasticity during constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients. Neurosci Lett 1998; 26: 5-8
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Lin KC, Chen YA, Chen CL et al. The effects of bilateral arm training on motor control and functional performance in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010; 24: 42-51
    Google Scholar
  • 13 McCombe Waller S, Whitall J. Bilateral arm training: why and who benefits?. NeuroRehabilitation 2008; 23: 29-41
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Miltner WH, Bauder H, Sommer M et al. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke 1999; 30: 586-592
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ostendorf CG, Wolf SL. Effect of forced use of the upper extremity of a hemiplegic patient on changes in function. A single-case design. Phys Ther 1981; 61: 1022-1028
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Rijntjes M, Hobbeling V, Hamzei F et al. Individual factors in constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2005; 19: 238-249
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Robertson IH, North NT. One hand is better than two: motor extinction of left hand advantage in unilateral neglect. Neuropsychologia 1994; 32: 1-11
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sherrington CS. The integrative action of the nervous system. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1906. /reprinted 1947
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; Oct 7 (04) CD004433
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Sterr A, Elbert T, Kölbl S et al. Longer versus shorter constraint-induced therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1374-1377
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sterr A, Freivogel S, Schmalohr D. Neurobehavioural aspects of recovery: Assessment of the learned nonuse phenomenon in hemiparetic adolescents. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1726-1731
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sterr A, Freivogel S. Intensive training in chronic upper limb hemiparesis does not increase spasticity or synergies. Neurology 2004; 14: 2176-2177
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Stoykov MF, Lewis GN, Corcos DM. Comparison of bilateral and unilateral training for upper extremity hemiparesis in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 945-953
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 347-354
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Taub E, Uswatte G, Elbert T. New treatments in neurorehabilitation founded on basic research. Nat Rev Nsc 2002; 3: 228-236
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Taub E, Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy: bridging from the primate laboratory to the stroke rehabilitation laboratory. J Rehabil Med 2003; (Suppl. 41) 34-40
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Taub E. Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1976; 4: 335-374
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Taub E. Implications for rehabilitation medicine. In: Ince LP, Hrsg. Behavioral psychology in rehabilitation medicine. Clinical applications. New York: Williams and Wilkins; 1980: 371-401
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D et al. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology 2006; 67: 1189-1194
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D et al. Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke 2005; 36: 2493-2496
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Uswatte G, Giuliani C, Winstein C et al. Validity of accelerometry for monitoring real-world arm activity in patients with subacute stroke: evidence from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 1340-1345
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL et al. Clinimetric properties of the motor activity log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke 2004; 35: 1410-1414
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ et al. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke 1999; 30: 2369-2375
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Weiller C, Rijntjes M. Einsichten aus dem Studium der Reorganisation des Gehirns nach Schlaganfall. In: Dettmers C, Weiller C, (Hrsg.) Up-date Neurologische Rehabilitation. Bad Honnef: Hippocampus Verlag; 2005: 177-189
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Willis JK, Morello A, Davie A. Forced-use treatment of childhood hemiparesis. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 94-96
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wittenberg GF, Chen R, Ishii K et al. Constraint-induced therapy in stroke: magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 48-57
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Woldag H, Waldmann G, Heuschkel G et al. Is the repetitive training of complex movements beneficial for motor recovery in stroke patients?. Clinical Rehabilitation 2003; 17: 723-730
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA et al. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Experimental Neurology 1989; 104: 125-132
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2095-2104
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP et al. Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7: 33-40
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wu CY, Chen CL, Tang SF et al. Kinematic and clinical analyses of upper-extremity movements after constraint-induced movement therapy in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 964-970
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wu CY, Chou SH, Kuo MY et al. Effects of object size on intralimb and interlimb coordination during a bimanual prehension task in patients with left cerebral vascular accidents. Motor Control 2008; 12: 296-310
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Wulf G, Höß M, Prinz W. Instruction for motor learning: differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. J Mot Behav 1998; 30: 169-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R. Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ 2010; 44: 75-84
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar