Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures (Review)

Background Contractures are a common complication of neurological and non-neurological conditions, and are characterised by a reduction in joint mobility. Stretch is widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures. However, it is not clear whether stretch is effective. This review is an update of the original 2010 version of this review. Objectives The aim of this review was to determine the effects of stretch on contractures in people with, or at risk of developing, contractures.The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions, spasticity and adverse events. Search methods In November 2015 we searched CENTRAL, DARE, HTA; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; SCI-EXPANDED; PEDro and trials registries. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purpose of treating or preventing contractures. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions and adverse events. We evaluated outcomes in the short term (up to one week after the last stretch) and in the long term (more than one week). We expressed effects as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses with a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE.Main results Forty-nine studies with 2135 participants met the inclusion criteria. No study performed stretch for more than seven months. Just over half the studies (51%) were at low risk of selection bias; all studies were at risk of detection bias for self reported outcomes such as pain and at risk of performance bias due to difficulty of blinding the intervention. However, most studies were at low risk of detection bias for objective outcomes including range of motion, and the majority of studies were free from attrition and selective reporting biases. The effect of these biases were unlikely to be important, given that there was little benefit with treatment. There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on joint mobility in people with neurological conditions (MD 2°; 95% CI 0° to 3°; 26 studies with 699 participants) or non-neurological conditions (SMD 0.2, 95% CI 0 to 0.3, 19 studies with 925 participants). In people with neurological conditions, it was uncertain whether stretch had clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 5 studies with 174 participants) or activity limitations (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 8 studies with 247 participants). No trials examined the short-term effects of stretch on quality of life or participation restrictions in people with neurological conditions. Five studies involving 145 participants reported eight adverse events including skin breakdown, bruising, blisters and pain but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data. In people with non-neurological conditions, there was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD-0.2, 95%CI -0.4 to 0.1; 7 studies with 422 participants) and moderate-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life (SMD 0.3, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.7; 2 studies with 97 participants). The short-term effect of stretch on activity limitations (SMD 0.1; 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3; 5 studies with 356 participants) and participation restrictions were uncertain (SMD -0.2; 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1; 2 studies with 192 participants). Nine studies involving 635 participants reported 41 adverse events including numbness, pain, Raynauds’ phenomenon, venous thrombosis, need for manipulation under anaesthesia, wound infections, haematoma, flexion deficits and swelling but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data. Authors’ conclusions There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important effects on joint mobility in people with or without neurological conditions if performed for less than seven months. Sensitivity analyses indicate results were robust in studies at risk of selection and detection biases in comparison to studies at low risk of bias. Sub-group analyses also suggest the effect of stretch is consistent in people with different types of neurological or non-neurological conditions. The effects of stretch performed for periods longer than sevenmonths have not been investigated. There was moderate- and high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life or pain in people with non-neurological conditions, respectively. The short-term effects of stretch on quality of life and pain in people with neurological conditions, and the short-term effects of stretch on activity limitations and participation restrictions for people with and without neurological conditions are uncertain

How effective is stretching in maintaining range of movement for children with cerebral palsy?

YesBackground: Cerebral Palsy (CP) is the most common childhood disorder affecting four percent of children born in the UK. It is common for children with CP to have reduced range of movement (ROM) due to spasticity and contractures. Stretching is commonly used in physiotherapy programmes to manage this. Aim: This critical review aims to evaluate the evidence base behind the use of stretching for children with CP. Methods: A systematic literature search of AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library Trials was conducted. Returned searches were assessed against strict criteria according to a predefined PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study). These studies were then critically appraised to assess the validity, reliability and clinical relevance. Findings: There is evidence supporting the use of stretching in children with CP. However there is also some evidence to suggest very little or no positive change. All of the included studies have methodological limitations, which questions the validity of the results. Conclusions/Recommendations: The research suggests some positive outcomes for the use of stretching in CP, studies that did not find positive outcomes found no adverse effects; however further research in the area is required to validate the effectiveness of stretching to maintain ROM in children with CP

Listening to the patient as a possible route to cost-effective rehabilitation: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Adolescents with cerebral palsy often do not need a specific rehabilitative treatment; however, when specific needs are expressed, clinicians should listen and try to answer them.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We present the case of a 17-year-old Italian male patient with hemiplegia who had received standard physiotherapy and, ultimately, after a period of adapted physical activity performed in a group, was under consideration for discharge. However, due to unsatisfactory hand control, he asked for help to reach a personal goal, the ability to drive a motorbike, without surgery. Functional taping showed efficacy, but was neither cost-effective nor practical for the patient and his family; by contrast, a dynamic orthosis associated with training in a real-life environment was instead successful.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The present case underlines the importance of considering solutions involving the motivation and compliance of the patient in order to improve his activity and participation.</p

Minimising impairment: Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial of upper limb orthoses for children with cerebral palsy.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb orthoses are frequently prescribed for children with cerebral palsy (CP) who have muscle overactivity predominantly due to spasticity, with little evidence of long-term effectiveness. Clinical consensus is that orthoses help to preserve range of movement: nevertheless, they can be complex to construct, expensive, uncomfortable and require commitment from parents and children to wear. This protocol paper describes a randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether long-term use of rigid wrist/hand orthoses (WHO) in children with CP, combined with usual multidisciplinary care, can prevent or reduce musculoskeletal impairments, including muscle stiffness/tone and loss of movement range, compared to usual multidisciplinary care alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial with economic analysis will recruit 194 children with CP, aged 5-15 years, who present with flexor muscle stiffness of the wrist and/or fingers/thumb (Modified Ashworth Scale score =1). Children, recruited from treatment centres in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia, will be randomised to groups (1:1 allocation) using concealed procedures. All children will receive care typically provided by their treating organisation. The treatment group will receive a custom-made serially adjustable rigid WHO, prescribed for 6 h nightly (or daily) to wear for 3 years. An application developed for mobile devices will monitor WHO wearing time and adverse events. The control group will not receive a WHO, and will cease wearing one if previously prescribed. Outcomes will be measured 6 monthly over a period of 3 years. The primary outcome is passive range of wrist extension, measured with fingers extended using a goniometer at 3 years. Secondary outcomes include muscle stiffness, spasticity, pain, grip strength and hand deformity. Activity, participation, quality of life, cost and cost-effectiveness will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence to inform clinicians, services, funding agencies and parents/carers of children with CP whether the provision of a rigid WHO to reduce upper limb impairment, in combination with usual multidisciplinary care, is worth the effort and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZ Clinical Trials Registry: U1111-1164-0572

Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review

Question Is stretch effective for the treatment and prevention of contractures in people with neurological and non-neurological conditions? Design A Cochrane Systematic Review with meta-analyses of randomised trials. Participants People with or at risk of contractures. Intervention Trials were considered for inclusion if they compared stretch to no stretch, or stretch plus co-intervention to co-intervention only. The stretch could be administered in any way. Outcome measures The outcome of interest was joint mobility. Two sets of meta-analyses were conducted with a random-effects model: one for people with neurological conditions and the other for people with non-neurological conditions. The quality of evidence supporting the results of the two sets of meta-analyses was assessed using GRADE. Results Eighteen studies involving 549 participants examined the effectiveness of stretch in people with neurological conditions, and provided useable data. The pooled mean difference was 2 deg (95% CI 0 to 3) favouring stretch. This was equivalent to a relative change of 2% (95% CI 0 to 3). Eighteen studies involving 865 participants examined the effectiveness of stretch in people with non-neurological conditions, and provided useable data. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.2 SD (95% CI 0 to 0.3) favouring stretch. This translated to an absolute mean increase of 1 deg (95% CI 0 to 2) and a relative change of 1% (95% CI 0 to 2). The GRADE level of evidence was high for both sets of meta-analyses. Conclusion Stretch does not have clinically important effects on joint mobility. [Harvey LA, Katalinic OM, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Lannin NA, Schurr K (2017) Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 67–75