A especialização hemisférica na avaliação do alcance e preensão em pacientes pós-AVC: um estudo observacional analítico transversal
Introduction: Unilateral brain lesions affecting the left hemisphere bring different clinical conditions than those affecting the right hemisphere. It is postulated that the left hemisphere is more responsible for the acceleration phase (reach) and the right hemisphere for the deceleration phase...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Dissertação |
| Idioma: | pt_BR |
| Publicado em: |
Brasil
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/jspui/handle/123456789/28969 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | Introduction: Unilateral brain lesions affecting the left hemisphere bring different clinical
conditions than those affecting the right hemisphere. It is postulated that the left hemisphere
is more responsible for the acceleration phase (reach) and the right hemisphere for the
deceleration phase (grip). This statement stems from kinematic studies of human movement,
and there is a gap in the lack of evidence on clinical studies evaluating range and grip
movement. The aim of this study was to analyze, through clinical instruments, whether
patients with right hemisphere injury differ from patients with left hemispheric injury for reach
and grasp movement. Methods: This is an observational cross-sectional analytical study
conducted with patients who had stroke for more than six months and had unilateral
impairment. Fifteen patients (nine with right injuries and six with left injuries) were selected
and evaluated in the reach and bilateral grasp movements using the Box and Block test
(BBT), the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), the functional range (REACH) and
dynamometry. Comparisons of clinical measurements (ARAT, BBT and Reach) and hand
dynamometry were performed between the two groups studied (GR x GL- intergroup), and
between individuals in the same group (comparison between the healthy side versus the side
affected by each individual). In addition, in order to observe the relationship between the
measurements obtained, a correlation test was performed. Results: Fifteen subjects met the
eligibility criteria for the study and, thus, the individuals were divided into two groups, DR and
GL. As for the intra-group analysis, statistically significant differences were found for the BBT,
Reach-AD and ARAT instruments for the DG, and BBT, Reach-AD and dynamometry for the
EG. In the intergroup evaluation, statistically significant results were found for the BBT, ARAT
and dynamometry scales Conclusion: It was not possible to obtain evidence that
hemispheric specialization can be measured using clinical evaluation scales. |
|---|