EVALUATION OF CONSTRAINT-INDUCED THERAPY COMPARED TO A CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPY PROGRAM WITH MOTOR AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN POST-ACUTE STROKE PATIENTS: PILOT PROJECT OF A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.5157325141112

• Palavras-chave: -

• Keywords: Stroke rehabilitation; Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy; Motor recovery; Cognitive performance; Neuroplasticity.

• Abstract: Background: Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term disability, resulting in persistent motor and cognitive impairments that limit independence and quality of life. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (CIMT) has demonstrated efficacy in enhancing motor recovery after stroke through neuroplastic mechanisms; however, its impact on cognitive performance remains less explored. Objective: To compare the effects of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy and conventional physical therapy on motor and cognitive performance in patients recovering from an acute stroke. Methodology: This single-blind, randomized clinical pilot trial included eight post-acute stroke patients (aged 47–79 years) allocated equally to two groups: one received CIMT for 3 hours per day over 15 consecutive days, and the other received individualized conventional physical therapy twice weekly for 6 months. Cognitive performance was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and other standardized neuropsychological tests. Motor function was evaluated with the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and Barthel Index. Assessments were performed before and 15 days after the interventions. Results: The CIMT group (62.0 ± 3.92 years) and the control group (61.0 ± 16.49 years) showed improvements in both cognitive and motor domains. MMSE scores increased from 21.0 ± 5.48 to 23.5 ± 4.04 in the CIMT group and from 21.3 ± 5.38 to 22.05 ± 5.6 in the control group (p = 0.24). RAVLT scores improved more in the CIMT group (3.3 ± 1.75 to 7.3 ± 1.5) than in the control group (5.3 ± 6.19 to 5.5 ± 5.80; p = 0.015). WMFT scores rose from 51.5 ± 11.45 to 62.8 ± 13.38 in the CIMT group and from 52.5 ± 6.5 to 61.25 ± 6.19 in the control group (p = 0.26). Conclusion: Both interventions improved motor and cognitive performance; however, CIMT produced slightly greater gains, suggesting potential benefits for integrated neuroplastic recovery. Larger trials are required to confirm these findings.