Limited assessment instruments

Oct 13, 2025 by pinkandtrash.com 46 views

Comparison of Motor Functional Outputs Between Bobath Neurorestration Techniques, Motor Releases Programs, and Mirror Therapy in Post Stroke Patients

Introduction

Stroke is a neurological disease that causes various disorders and disabilities, affecting the quality of life of patients. In the post-stroke acute phase, therapeutic efforts are highly dependent on neurorestoring techniques, including Bobath techniques, Motor Release Programs (MRP), and Mirror Therapy (MT). Despite the importance of these techniques, there is still a lack of studies that prove which technique is superior in overcoming post-stroke disorders and disabilities.

Background

Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, resulting in significant loss of motor function, cognitive impairment, and emotional distress. The selection of appropriate rehabilitation techniques is crucial in restoring motor function and improving the quality of life of patients. Bobath techniques, MRP, and MT are three neurorestoring techniques that have been widely used in post-stroke rehabilitation. However, there is limited research on the comparison of motor functional outputs between these techniques.

Methodology

A prospective observational study was conducted between January 11 to November 11, 2017, involving 30 post-stroke patients who met the inclusion criteria. The study design used was observational with prospective groups. Patients were divided into three groups based on the neurorestoring techniques applied, namely Bobath, MRP, and MT techniques. The results of the assessment were repeated after one month of therapy.

Assessment Instruments

Several assessment instruments were used to evaluate motor functional outputs, including:

National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS): a standardized scale used to assess stroke severity.
Barthel Index (BI): a scale used to assess activities of daily living (ADL) in patients with stroke.
Motor Assessment Scale (MAS): a scale used to assess motor function in patients with stroke.
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS): a scale used to assess muscle spasticity in patients with stroke.

Results

The results showed a statistically significant difference in the measurement of NIHSS (p = 0.01), BI (p = 0.005), MAS (p <0.001), and MAS (p = 0.001) before and after neurorestoration interventions. Through variant analysis (ANOVA), we found that the difference in MAS (ΔMAS) was a significant output variable. Furthermore, using the Post Hoc Bonferroni test, it was proven that the Bobath technique provided a significant difference in the MAS score compared to MT (p = 0.007).

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that there are significant differences in motor functional outputs (NIHSS, BI, MAS, and MAS) before and after neurorestoration. In particular, the Bobath technique shows better results compared to MT in improving the motor function of post-stroke patients. This underlines the importance of the selection of appropriate rehabilitation techniques, depending on the specific conditions and needs of each patient.

Additional Analysis and Explanation

Stroke often results in a significant loss of motor function, affecting the quality of life of the patient. Therefore, the selection of appropriate rehabilitation techniques is very important. Bobath, MRP, and MT techniques each have a unique approach in helping patients restore their motor function.

Bobath techniques: focus on developing postural control and coordinated movements, making it suitable for patients who have difficulty in regulating body movements.
MRP: provides repeated exercises that focus on learning functional movements, increasing the patient's ability to carry out daily activities.
MT: utilizes visual effects to increase motivation and improve patient movement patterns.

The significant difference in results between Bobath and MT techniques shows that a more active and directed approach to using functional movements, as applied in Bobath techniques, can provide greater benefits in post-stroke rehabilitation. This underlines the importance of the selection of appropriate rehabilitation techniques, depending on the specific conditions and needs of each patient.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides evidence that there are significant differences in motor functional outputs between Bobath, MRP, and MT techniques in post-stroke patients. The Bobath technique shows better results compared to MT in improving the motor function of post-stroke patients. This study highlights the importance of the selection of appropriate rehabilitation techniques, depending on the specific conditions and needs of each patient.

Future Research Directions

Further research is needed to explore more about the mechanism of work of each technique, as well as the factors that influence the success of post-stroke rehabilitation. Thus, health service providers can be more effective in preparing individual and evidence-based therapeutic plans, in order to increase the functional results of post-stroke patients.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

Small sample size: the study involved only 30 post-stroke patients.
Short duration: the study was conducted over a short period of one month.
Limited assessment instruments: the study used only four assessment instruments to evaluate motor functional outputs.

Recommendations for Future Studies

Future studies should aim to:

Increase sample size: involve a larger number of post-stroke patients to increase the generalizability of the results.
Longer duration: conduct the study over a longer period to evaluate the long-term effects of each technique.
More assessment instruments: use a wider range of assessment instruments to evaluate motor functional outputs.

By addressing these limitations and recommendations, future studies can provide more comprehensive and accurate information on the comparison of motor functional outputs between Bobath, MRP, and MT techniques in post-stroke patients.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Comparison of Motor Functional Outputs Between Bobath Neurorestration Techniques, Motor Releases Programs, and Mirror Therapy in Post Stroke Patients

Q: What is the main objective of this study?

A: The main objective of this study is to compare the motor functional outputs between Bobath neurorestration techniques, Motor Releases Programs (MRP), and Mirror Therapy (MT) in post-stroke patients.

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

A: The key findings of this study are:

There are significant differences in motor functional outputs (NIHSS, BI, MAS, and MAS) before and after neurorestoration.
The Bobath technique shows better results compared to MT in improving the motor function of post-stroke patients.
The significant difference in results between Bobath and MT techniques shows that a more active and directed approach to using functional movements, as applied in Bobath techniques, can provide greater benefits in post-stroke rehabilitation.

Q: What are the implications of this study?

A: The implications of this study are:

The selection of appropriate rehabilitation techniques is crucial in restoring motor function and improving the quality of life of post-stroke patients.
Bobath techniques may be a more effective approach in improving motor function in post-stroke patients compared to MT.
Further research is needed to explore more about the mechanism of work of each technique, as well as the factors that influence the success of post-stroke rehabilitation.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The limitations of this study are:

Small sample size: the study involved only 30 post-stroke patients.
Short duration: the study was conducted over a short period of one month.
Limited assessment instruments: the study used only four assessment instruments to evaluate motor functional outputs.

Q: What are the recommendations for future studies?

A: The recommendations for future studies are:

Increase sample size: involve a larger number of post-stroke patients to increase the generalizability of the results.
Longer duration: conduct the study over a longer period to evaluate the long-term effects of each technique.
More assessment instruments: use a wider range of assessment instruments to evaluate motor functional outputs.

Q: What are the potential applications of this study?

A: The potential applications of this study are:

Improving the selection of rehabilitation techniques for post-stroke patients.
Developing more effective rehabilitation programs for post-stroke patients.
Enhancing the quality of life of post-stroke patients.

Q: What are the potential implications for clinical practice?

A: The potential implications for clinical practice are:

Clinicians should consider the specific needs and conditions of each patient when selecting rehabilitation techniques.
Clinicians should be aware of the potential benefits and limitations of each technique.
Clinicians should be prepared to adapt their treatment plans based on the patient's response to each technique.

Q: What are the potential implications for future research?

A: The potential implications for future research are:

Further research is needed to explore more about the mechanism of work of each technique.
Further research is needed to investigate the factors that influence the success of post-stroke rehabilitation.
Further research is needed to develop more effective rehabilitation programs for post-stroke patients.

Q: What are the potential implications for policy and practice?

A: The potential implications for policy and practice are:

Policy makers should consider the need for more effective rehabilitation programs for post-stroke patients.
Policy makers should consider the need for more funding for research on post-stroke rehabilitation.
Practitioners should be aware of the potential benefits and limitations of each technique and be prepared to adapt their treatment plans based on the patient's response to each technique.