medigraphic.com
Academia Mexicana de Neurología, A.C.

2012, Número 4

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Mex Neuroci 2012; 13 (4)


Descripción de la terapia de restricción inducida: Aplicabilidad en el contexto clínico

Doussoulin A

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 48
Paginas: 223-232
Archivo PDF: 213.86 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: La innovadora terapia de restricción inducida (CIT, por sus siglas en inglés) tiene por objetivo incrementar el uso funcional de la extremidad parética a través de la restricción de las extremidades indemnes. Objetivo: Analizar la literatura sobre la eficacia y aplicaciones de la CIT, con especial enfoque en pacientes con enfermedad vascular cerebral (EVC). Desarrollo: El enfoque CIT se basa en restringir el movimiento del brazo o la pierna no afectada del paciente, lo que lo fuerza a utilizar la extremidad patética durante una sucesión de ejercicios sistemáticos planeados. Las sesiones de terapia involucran tanto al paciente como a sus cuidadores. CIT puede ser un método eficaz para mejorar la función de las extremidades patéticas de pacientes que presentan el fenómeno llamado “no uso aprendido”, entre los que se encuentran los afectados con EVC. Conclusión: CIT es una terapia sistematizada útil en el proceso de rehabilitación de pacientes con paresia adquirida.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar R, Koelman T, Lankhorst G, Koetsier J. Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis. Stroke 1997; 28: 1550-6.

  2. Carr J, Shepherd R. Rehabilitación de pacientes en el ictus. Madrid: Editorial Elsevier Science Limited; 2004.

  3. Taub E, Uswatte G, Elbert T. New treatments in neurorehabilitation founded on basic research. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002; 3: 228-36.

  4. Flórez M. Intervenciones para mejorar la función motora en el paciente con ictus. 2000.

  5. Taub E, Crago J, Uswatte G. Constraint Induced Movement Therapy: a new approach to treatment in physical rehabilitation. Rehab Psychol 1998; 43: 152-70.

  6. Miltner W, Bauder H, Sommer M, Dettmers C, Taub E. Effects of constraintinduced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke 1999; 30: 586-92.

  7. Sterr A, Elbert T, Berthold I, Kölbel S, Rockstroh B, Taub E. Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: 1374-7.

  8. Duncan P. Synthesis of intervention trials to imporve motor recovery following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 1997; 3: 1-20.

  9. Woldag H, Hummelsheim H. Evidence-based physiotherapeutic concepts for improving arm and hand function in stroke patients: a review. J Neurol 2002; 249: 518-28.

  10. Grotta J, Noser E, Ro T, Boake C, Levin H, Aronowski J, et al. Constraintinduced movement therapy. Stroke 2004; 35: 2699-701.

  11. Knapp HE, Berman A. Effect of deafferentation on a conditioned avoidance response. Science 1958; 128: 842-3.

  12. Knapp H, Taub E, Berman A. Movements in monkeys with deafferented forelimbs. Exp Neurol 1963; 7: 305-15.

  13. Taub E, Ellman S, Berman A. Deafferentation in monkeys: effect on conditioned grasp response. Science 1966; 151: 593-4.

  14. Taub E, Perrella P, Barro G. Behavioral development after forelimb deafferentation on day of birth in monkeys with and without blinding. Science 1973; 181: 959-60.

  15. Taub E, Goldberg I, Taub P. Deafferentation in monkeys: pointing at a target without visual feedback. Exp Neurol 1975; 46: 178-86.

  16. Taub E. Motor behavior following deafferentation in the developing and motorically mature monkey. Neural Control of Locomotion. Herman R, Grillner S, Ralston H, Stein P (eds.). New York: 1976, p. 675-705.

  17. Berman A, Teodoru D, Taub E. Conditioned behavior following sensory isolation in primates. Trans Am Neurol Assoc 1964; 89: 185-6.

  18. Azrin N, Holz W. Punishment. Operant behavior: Areas of Research and Application. WH (ed.) New York: 1966.

  19. Learning CA. 4th Ed. Prentice Hall; New Jersey: 1998.

  20. 20. Liepert J, Bauder H, Wolfgang H, Miltner W, Taub E, Weiller C. Treatmentinduced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 2000; 31: 1210-6.

  21. Taub E, Berman A. Movement and Learning in the absence of sensory feedback. The Neuropsychology of spatially oriented behavior. Freedman S (ed.). 1968, p. 173-92.

  22. Taub E, Uswatte G, Mark V, Morris D. The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys 2006; 42: 241-56.

  23. Smania N. Constraint-induced movement therapy: an original concept in rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys 2006; 42: 239-40.

  24. Wittenberg G, Chen R, Ishii K, Bushara K, Eckloff S, Croarkin E, et al. Constraintinduced therapy in stroke: magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 48-57.

  25. Levy C, Nichols D, Schmalbrock P, Keller P, Chakeres D. Functional MRI evidence of cortical reorganization in upper-limb stroke hemiplegia treated with constraint-induced movement therapy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 80: 4-12.

  26. Schaechter J, Kraft E, Hilliard T, Dijkhuizen R, Benner T, Finklestein S, et al. Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2002; 16: 326-38.

  27. Ince J. Escape and avoidance conditioning of response in the plegic arm of stroke patients; a preliminary study. Psychonom Sci 1969; 16: 49-50.

  28. Halberstam J, Zaretsky H, Brucker B, Guttman A. Avoidance conditioning of motor responses in elderly brain-damaged patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1971; 52: 318-27.

  29. Taub E, Uswatte G. Constraint-Induced Movement therapy: answers and questions after two decades of research. NeuroRehabilitation 2006; 21: 93-5.

  30. Taub E, Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy: bridging from the primate laboratory to the stroke rehabilitation laboratory. J Rehabil Med 2003; 41: 34-40.

  31. 31. Bonaiuti D, Rebasti L, Sioli P. The constraint induced movement therapy: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials on the adult stroke patients. Eura Medicophys 2007; 43: 139-46.

  32. Hakkennes S, Keating J. Constraint-induced movement therapy following stroke: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Aust J Physiother 2005; 51: 221-31.

  33. van der Lee J, Beckerman H, Lankhorst G, Bouter L. Constraint-induced movement therapy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1606-7.

  34. Dromerick A, Edwards D, Hahn M. Does the application of constraint-induced movement therapy during acute rehabilitation reduce arm impairment after ischemic stroke? Stroke 2000; 31: 2984-8.

  35. Humm J, Kozlowski D, James D, Gotts JS, T. Use dependent exaggeration of brain damage occurs during and early post lesion vulnerable period. Brain Research 1998; 783: 286-92.

  36. Morris D, Taub E, Macrina D, Cook E, Geiger B. A method for standardizing procedures in rehabilitation: use in the extremity constraint induced therapy evaluation multisite randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 663-8.

  37. Page S, Sisto S, Johnston M, Levine P. Modified constraint-induced therapy after subacute stroke: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2002; 16: 290-5.

  38. Ploughman M, Corbett D. Can forced-use therapy be clinically applied after stroke? An exploratory randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 1417-23.

  39. Winstein C, Miller J, Blanton S, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, et al. Methods for a multisite randomized trial to investigate the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy in improving upper extremity function among adults recovering from a cerebrovascular stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 137-52.

  40. Wolf S, Thompson P, Morris D, Rose D, Winstein C, Taub E, et al. The EXCITE trial: attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2005; 19: 194-205.

  41. Suputtitada A, Suwanwela N, Tumvitee S. Effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke patients. J Med Assoc Thai 2004; 87: 1482-90.

  42. Taub E, Miller N, Novack T, Cook Er, Fleming W, Nepomuceno C, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 347-54.

  43. Lum P, Taub E, Schwandt D, Postman M, Hardin P, Uswatte G. Automated Constraint-Induced Therapy Extension (AutoCITE) for movement deficits after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41: 249-58.

  44. Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D. Improved motor recovery after stroke and massive cortical reorganization following Constraint-Induced Movement therapy. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2003; 14: 77-91.

  45. Butefisch C, Hummelshein H, Kensler P, Mauritz K. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcomes of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. Journal Neurology Science 1995; 130: 59-68.

  46. Liepert J, Uhde I, Graf S, Leidner O, Weiller C. Motor cortex plasticity during forced-use therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. J Neurol 2001; 248: 315-21.

  47. Ro T, Noser E, Boake C, Johnson R, Gaber M, Speroni A, et al. Functional reorganization and recovery after constraint-induced movement therapy in subacute stroke: case reports. Neurocase 2006; 12: 50-60.

  48. Andrews K, Stewart J. Stroke recovery: he can but does he? Rheumatol Rehabil 1979; 18: 43-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com