Efficacy and feasibility of SENSory relearning of the UPPer limb (SENSUPP) in people with chronic stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Issue 12 (8th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Carlsson, Håkan; Rosén, Birgitta; Björkman, Anders; Pessah‐Rasmussen, Hélène; Brogårdh, Christina
• Is Part Of: PM&R. Volume 14:Issue 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1461
• Page End: 1473
• Publication Date: 2022-03-08
• Subjects: Medical rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Physical Therapy Modalities -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12767
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1934-1482

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Sensorimotor impairments of the upper limb (UL) are common after stroke, but there is a lack of evidence‐based interventions to improve functioning of UL. Objective: To evaluate (1) the efficacy of sensory relearning and task‐specific training compared to task‐specific training only, and (2) the feasibility of the training in chronic stroke. Design: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: University hospital outpatient clinic. Participants: Twenty‐seven participants (median age; 62 years, 20 men) were randomized to an intervention group (IG; n = 15) or to a control group (CG; n = 12). Intervention: Both groups received training twice weekly in 2.5‐hour sessions for 5 weeks. The training in the IG consisted of sensory relearning, task‐specific training, and home training. The training in the CG consisted of task‐specific training. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was sensory function (touch thresholds, touch discrimination, light touch, and proprioception). Secondary outcomes were dexterity, ability to use the hand in daily activities, and perceived participation. A blinded assessor conducted the assessments at baseline (T1), post intervention (T2), and at 3‐month follow‐up (T3). Nonparametric analyses and effect‐size calculations (r) were performed. Feasibility was evaluated by a questionnaire. Results: After the training, only touch thresholds improved significantly from T1 to T2 ( p = .007, r = 0.61) in the IG compared to the CG. Within the IG, significant improvements were found from T1 to T2 regarding use of the hand in daily activities ( p = .001, r = 0.96) and movement quality ( p = .004, r = 0.85) and from T1 to T3 regarding satisfaction with performance in meaningful activities ( p = .004, r = 0.94). The CG significantly improved the performance of using the hand in meaningful activities from T1 to T2 ( p = .017, r = 0.86). The training was well tolerated by the participants and performed without any adverse events. Conclusions: Combined sensory relearning and task‐specific training may be a promising and feasible intervention to improve UL sensorimotor function after stroke.