TY - JOUR

T1 - Neural tension technique is no different from random passive movements in reducing spasticity in patients with traumatic brain injury

AU - Lorentzen, Jakob

AU - Nielsen, Dorthe

AU - Holm, Karl

AU - Baagøe, Susanne

AU - Grey, Michael J

AU - Nielsen, Jens Bo

N1 - CURIS 2012 5200 080

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose: Neural tension technique (NTT) is a therapy believed to reduce spasticity and to increase range of motion (ROM). This study compared the ability of NTT and random passive movements (RPMs) to reduce spasticity in the knee flexors in 10 spastic patients with brain injury. Methods: An RCT study with crossover design evaluated muscle tone measured by: 1) hand-held dynamometer; 2) Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS); 3) and ROM by; 4) angles of resistance onset "catch" (R1) compensatory movement (R2); and 5) 'subjectively perceived reduction in muscle tone'. Outcome measures were recorded by three raters before and after a single treatment session. Results: Objective stiffness measured with the hand-held device showed no significant changes for the NTT or RPM (p = 0.09-0.79). The subjective measures showed significant changes after the NTT for the non-blinded rater (MAS: p <0.05: R1: p <0.05; R2: p <0.05), but for the blinded rater a significant reduction was found only for R1 (p <0.05) and R2 (p <0.05). For the non-blinded rater intervention effects were found for R1 (p <0.01), R2 (p <0.01) and subjectively perceived tone reduction (p <0.01). For the blinded rater no intervention effect was found. Conclusions: An objective evaluation of NTT demonstrates that it does not reduce spasticity. However, it does increase ROM with the same effect as RPM. [Box: see text].

AB - Purpose: Neural tension technique (NTT) is a therapy believed to reduce spasticity and to increase range of motion (ROM). This study compared the ability of NTT and random passive movements (RPMs) to reduce spasticity in the knee flexors in 10 spastic patients with brain injury. Methods: An RCT study with crossover design evaluated muscle tone measured by: 1) hand-held dynamometer; 2) Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS); 3) and ROM by; 4) angles of resistance onset "catch" (R1) compensatory movement (R2); and 5) 'subjectively perceived reduction in muscle tone'. Outcome measures were recorded by three raters before and after a single treatment session. Results: Objective stiffness measured with the hand-held device showed no significant changes for the NTT or RPM (p = 0.09-0.79). The subjective measures showed significant changes after the NTT for the non-blinded rater (MAS: p <0.05: R1: p <0.05; R2: p <0.05), but for the blinded rater a significant reduction was found only for R1 (p <0.05) and R2 (p <0.05). For the non-blinded rater intervention effects were found for R1 (p <0.01), R2 (p <0.01) and subjectively perceived tone reduction (p <0.01). For the blinded rater no intervention effect was found. Conclusions: An objective evaluation of NTT demonstrates that it does not reduce spasticity. However, it does increase ROM with the same effect as RPM. [Box: see text].

U2 - 10.3109/09638288.2012.665132

DO - 10.3109/09638288.2012.665132

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 22423894

VL - 34

SP - 1978

EP - 1985

JO - Disability and Rehabilitation

JF - Disability and Rehabilitation

SN - 0963-8288

IS - 23

ER -