The effect of functional stretching exercises on functional outcomes in spastic stroke patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke

BACKGROUND

Various approaches to physical rehabilitation to improve function and mobility are used after stroke. There is considerable controversy around the relative effectiveness of approaches, and little known about optimal delivery and dose. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use components from several different approaches.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: To determine whether physical rehabilitation is effective for recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

To explore factors that may impact the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation approaches, including time after stroke, geographical location of study, intervention dose/duration, intervention provider, and treatment components. Stakeholder involvement: Key aims were to clarify the focus of the review, inform decisions about subgroup analyses, and co-produce statements relating to key implications.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched November 2022), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2022), Embase (1980 to November 2022), AMED (1985 to November 2022), CINAHL (1982 to November 2022), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to November 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

RCTs of upper limb function or single treatment components.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

measures of independence in activities of daily living (IADL) and motor function.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

balance, gait velocity, and length of stay.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected studies according to pre-defined eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update, we included 267 studies (21,838 participants). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with half (133/267) in China. Generally, studies were heterogeneous, and often poorly reported. We judged only 14 studies in meta-analyses as at low risk of bias for all domains and, on average, we considered 33% of studies in analyses of primary outcomes at high risk of bias. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than no (or minimal) physical rehabilitation? Compared to no physical rehabilitation, physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.56; 52 studies, 5403 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 50 studies, 5669 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of long-term benefits for these outcomes. Physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 4.54, 95% CI 1.36 to 7.72; 9 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves gait velocity (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42; 18 studies, 1131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but with no evidence of long-term benefits. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than attention control? The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation, as compared to attention control, on IADL (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.75; 2 studies, 106 participants), motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.38; 5 studies, 237 participants), and balance (MD 6.61, 95% CI -0.45 to 13.66; 4 studies, 240 participants). Physical rehabilitation likely improves gait speed when compared to attention control (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 7 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Does additional physical rehabilitation improve outcomes? Additional physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.71; 21 studies, 1972 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 22 studies, 1965 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Additional physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 5.74, 95% CI 3.78 to 7.71; 15 studies, 795 participants; low-certainty evidence) and gait velocity (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; 19 studies, 1004 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Is any one approach to physical rehabilitation more effective than any other approach? Compared to other approaches, those that focus on functional task training may improve IADL (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 22 studies, 1535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; 20 studies, 1671 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence in the latter is very uncertain. The benefit was sustained long-term. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of functional task training on balance (MD 2.16, 95% CI -0.24 to 4.55) and gait velocity (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.56). Compared to other approaches, neurophysiological approaches may be less effective than other approaches in improving IADL (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06; 14 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence), and there may be no difference in improving motor function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.12; 13 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence), balance (MD -0.60, 95% CI -5.90 to 6.03; 9 studies, 292 participants; low-certainty evidence), and gait velocity (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.27; 16 studies, 630 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on gait velocity. For all comparisons, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation on adverse events and length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical rehabilitation, using a mix of different treatment components, likely improves recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Additional physical rehabilitation, delivered as an adjunct to 'usual' rehabilitation, may provide added benefits. Physical rehabilitation approaches that focus on functional task training may be useful. Neurophysiological approaches to physical rehabilitation may be no different from, or less effective than, other physical rehabilitation approaches. Certainty in this evidence is limited due to substantial heterogeneity, with mainly small studies and important differences between study populations and interventions. We feel it is unlikely that any studies published since November 2022 would alter our conclusions. Given the size of this review, future updates warrant consensus discussion amongst stakeholders to ensure the most relevant questions are explored for optimal decision-making.

Constant-Torque Stretching in Ankle Contractures Results in Greater Changes in Range of Motion Than Constant-Angle or Dynamic Stretching: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the acute (directly poststretching) and long-term (≥1 week of treatment) effects of stretching type, duration, and intensity on joint range of motion (ROM) and stiffness in ankle contractures.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase.com, Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCO/SPORTDiscus, and EBSCO/CINAHL were searched for studies published in English from inception until September 12, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Fifty-five studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, covering observational, controlled and noncontrolled studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pre- and post-treatment ankle ROM and stiffness, and stretching duration, intensity, and type were extracted from each eligible treatment group by 1 reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Most studies did not quantify stretching intensity and its effect was not tested. For the acute effects on ROM, 15 effect sizes were obtained from 11 studies. ROM increased more after constant-torque (95% confidence interval [CI] [1.35, 2.15]) than after constant-angle (95% CI [0.44, 1.40] or dynamic stretching (95% CI [0.50, 1.01]), F=11.99, P=.004, I2=0%, and increased with duration (95% CI [0.00, 0.05]), F=5.12, P=.011, I2=55%. Acute effects on joint stiffness could not be assessed. For the long-term effects, 54 and 12 effect sizes were estimated from 44 and 10 studies, for ROM and stiffness, respectively. No effect of stretching duration on either outcome was found (F=0.32, P=.57, I2=78% and F=0.74, P=.409, I2=5%, respectively). No effect of stretching type on stiffness was found (F=0.02, P=.888, I2=0%). Not enough information was available to assess the long-term effects of stretch type.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that constant-torque stretching acutely increases ROM more than constant-angle and dynamic stretching. To assess if these superior acute effects result in more substantial adaptations over time, future long-term studies should define stretching type more clearly. Also, torque and angle during stretching should be recorded as measures of intensity in future studies.

Mechanisms Underlying Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Cancer Properties of Stretching-A Review

Stretching is one of the popular elements in physiotherapy and rehabilitation. When correctly guided, it can help minimize or slow down the disabling effects of chronic health conditions. Most likely, the benefits are associated with reducing inflammation; recent studies demonstrate that this effect from stretching is not just systemic but also local. In this review, we present the current body of knowledge on the anti-inflammatory properties of stretching at a molecular level. A total of 22 papers, focusing on anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer properties of stretching, have been selected and reviewed. We show the regulation of oxidative stress, the expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory genes and mediators, and remodeling of the extracellular matrix, expressed by changes in collagen and matrix metalloproteinases levels, in tissues subjected to stretching. We point out that a better understanding of the anti-inflammatory properties of stretching may result in increasing its importance in treatment and recovery from diseases such as osteoarthritis, systemic sclerosis, and cancer.

Effectiveness of Stretching in Post-Stroke Spasticity and Range of Motion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Spasticity is one of the most frequent and disabling clinical manifestations of patients with stroke. In clinical practice, stretching is the most widely used physiotherapeutic intervention for this population. However, there is no solid evidence for its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of stretching in reducing post-stroke spasticity. Research was carried out until March 2021 in the following scientific databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PEDro. The PEDro scale and the Cochrane collaboration tool were used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the studies. Eight articles were selected for qualitative analysis; six of them contributed information to the meta-analysis. No conclusive evidence was obtained on the effectiveness of stretching in terms of treating spasticity and range of motion in patients with stroke. Further research is necessary in order to determine the effectiveness of the use of stretching in this population, considering the different types of stretching (static and dynamic), the time of application, the measurement of the different components of spasticity, and the extrapolation of functional results.

Effects of stretching exercises on human gait: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Stretching is commonly used in physical therapy as a rehabilitation tool to improve range of motion and motor function. However, is stretching an efficient method to improve gait, and if so, for which patient category? Methods: A systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis was conducted using relevant databases. Every patient category and every type of stretching programs were included without multicomponent programs. Data were meta-analysed where possible. Estimates of effect sizes (reported as standard mean difference (SMD)) with their respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported for each outcome. The PEDro scale was used for the quality assessment. Results: Twelve studies were included in the analysis. Stretching improved gait performance as assessed by walking speed and stride length only in a study with a frail elderly population, with small effect sizes (both SMD= 0.49; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.96; PEDro score: 3/10). The total distance and the continuous walking distance of the six-minute walking test were also improved only in a study in an elderly population who had symptomatic peripheral artery disease, with large effect sizes (SMD= 1.56; 95% CI: 0.66, 2.45 and SMD= 3.05; 95% CI: 1.86, 4.23, respectively; PEDro score: 5/10). The results were conflicting in healthy older adults or no benefit was found for most of the performance, spatiotemporal, kinetic and angular related variables. Only one study (PEDro score: 6/10) showed improvements in stance phase duration (SMD=-1.92; 95% CI: -3.04, -0.81), swing phase duration (SMD=1.92; 95 CI: 0.81, 3.04), double support phase duration (SMD= -1.69; 95% CI: -2.76, -0.62) and step length (SMD=1.37; 95% CI: 0.36, 2.38) with large effect sizes. Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the beneficial effect of using stretching to improve gait. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the impact of stretching on human gait.

Effects of stretching exercises on human gait: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Stretching is commonly used in physical therapy as a rehabilitation tool to improve range of motion and motor function. However, is stretching an efficient method to improve gait, and if so, for which patient category? Methods: A systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis was conducted using relevant databases. Every patient category and every type of stretching programs were included without multicomponent programs. Data were meta-analysed where possible. Estimates of effect sizes (reported as standard mean difference (SMD)) with their respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported for each outcome. The PEDro scale was used for the quality assessment. Results: Twelve studies were included in the analysis. Stretching improved gait performance as assessed by walking speed and stride length only in a study with a frail elderly population, with small effect sizes (both SMD= 0.49; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.96; PEDro score: 3/10). The total distance and the continuous walking distance of the six-minute walking test were also improved only in a study in an elderly population who had symptomatic peripheral artery disease, with large effect sizes (SMD= 1.56; 95% CI: 0.66, 2.45 and SMD= 3.05; 95% CI: 1.86, 4.23, respectively; PEDro score: 5/10). The results were conflicting in healthy older adults or no benefit was found for most of the performance, spatiotemporal, kinetic and angular related variables. Only one study (PEDro score: 6/10) showed improvements in stance phase duration (SMD=-1.92; 95% CI: -3.04, -0.81), swing phase duration (SMD=1.92; 95 CI: 0.81, 3.04), double support phase duration (SMD= -1.69; 95% CI: -2.76, -0.62) and step length (SMD=1.37; 95% CI: 0.36, 2.38) with large effect sizes. Conclusions: There is no strong evidence supporting the beneficial effect of using stretching to improve gait. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to understand the impact of stretching on human gait.