Feasibility of SaeboFlex upper-limb training in acute stroke rehabilitation: a clinical case series.

Upper-limb (UL) recovery following stroke is often poor. UL rehabilitation therefore continues to be a major focus for occupational therapy. Published evidence for the effectiveness of SaeboFlex training in acute stroke rehabilitation is scarce. The purpose of this study is to explore the feasibility and patient experience of SaeboFlex training in acute stroke. This feasibility study recruited stroke patients (< 84 days post-stroke) with moderate/severe UL weakness. They participated in SaeboFlex sessions for 12 weeks in addition to conventional rehabilitation. A battery of measures was taken at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Eight participants were recruited. For the action research arm test score and UL Motricity Index, clinically significant improvements were noted in five out of seven (71%) and six out of seven participants (86%) respectively. Clinically significant improvements were also noted in secondary outcomes. Shoulder complications occurred in one participant. SaeboFlex training facilitated clinically significant improvements in UL function. It has the potential to improve participation and independence in ADLs, reduce carer burden and associated costs. Being a feasibility study with no control arm, we urge caution in interpreting these results. Future research is needed to evaluate the efficacy, optimum dosage and impact on dependency levels of SaeboFlex training as part of a randomized controlled trial.

Observation-to-imitate plus practice could add little to physical therapy benefits within 31 days of stroke: translational randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Observation of action with intention-to-imitate (OTI) might enhance motor recovery. This early phase trial investigated whether OTI followed by physical practice (OTI + PP) enhanced the benefits of conventional physical therapy (CPT) on upper limb recovery early after stroke. METHODS: Participants were 3 to 31 days poststroke. They had substantial paresis and ability to imitate action with their ipsilesional arm. After baseline measures, participants were randomized to either OTI + PP in addition to CPT or to CPT only. Outcome measures were made after 15 days of treatment. The measurement battery was the Motricity Index (MI) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Change, baseline to outcome, was examined using the Wilcoxon test for within group and Mann-Whitney U test for between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-five of 570 stroke survivors were eligible, 55 were able to imitate, 37 gave informed consent, 7 were transferred out of area before baseline, and 29 were randomized. Outcome measures were completed with 13 CPT participants and 9 OTI + PP participants. Both groups showed statistically significant improvements for the MI (CPT median change 8, P = .003; OTI + PP median change 10, P = .012) but the median (95% confidence interval [CI]) between-group difference was 0.0 (-11, 16), P = 1.000. For the ARAT, only the CPT group showed a statistically significant improvement (median 9, P = .006). The median (95% CI) between-group difference of 1.0 (-18, 23) was not statistically significant (P = .815). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that OTI + PP might add little to the benefits of CPT early after stroke.