Motor recovery of hand in most of the stroke survivors is poor. Hand rehabilitation therefore continues to be a major focus for occupational therapy. Only some stroke survivors are candidates for constraint-induced movement therapy and the robots for robot-assisted therapy are expensive to purchase. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a low cost hand rehabilitation device for use in home or a therapeutic environment. The purposes of this study were to design of a firm, durable and adjustable hand orthosis and to examine the usability of the dynamic hand orthosis for persons with stroke. Splinting materials, 3D prints and hardware materials were used to design a firm and durable dynamic hand orthosis. Then user satisfaction questionnaire, hand function test and motion analysis system were used to examine the usability of the dynamic hand orthosis in persons with stroke. The results show that the persons with stroke satisfied with the orthosis. When wearing the orthosis the pick-up and release hand function improved immediately. The range of motion of metacarpophalangeal joint from hand open to pulp grip also increased. Future research is needed to evaluate the effects of the dynamic hand orthosis intervention on hand movement and function in both chronic and acute stroke.
Hand orthosis Stroke Hand rehabilitation Hand function
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (MOST 106-2314-B-040-018).
Kwakkel G et al (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34(9):2181–2186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigin VL et al (2003) Stroke epidemiology: a review of population-based studies of incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality in the late 20th century. Lancet Neurol 2(1):43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamper DG et al (2003) Relative contributions of neural mechanisms versus muscle mechanics in promoting finger extension deficits following stroke. Muscle Nerve 28(3):309–318MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamper DG et al (2006) Weakness is the primary contributor to finger impairment in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(9):1262–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamper DG, Rymer WZ (2001) Impairment of voluntary control of finger motion following stroke: role of inappropriate muscle coactivation. Muscle Nerve 24(5):673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz EG, Waldinger HC, Kamper DG (2005) Kinetic and kinematic workspaces of the index finger following stroke. Brain 128(Pt 5):1112–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpinella I, Jonsdottir J, Ferrarin M (2011) Multi-finger coordination in healthy subjects and stroke patients: a mathematical modelling approach. J Neuroeng Rehabil 8:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liepert J et al (2001) Motor cortex plasticity during forced-use therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. J Neurol 248(4):315–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarkka IM, Pitkanen K, Sivenius J (2005) Paretic hand rehabilitation with constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 84(7):501–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quandt F, Hummel FC (2014) The influence of functional electrical stimulation on hand motor recovery in stroke patients: a review. Exp Transl Stroke Med 6:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sale P et al (2014) Recovery of hand function with robot-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients: a randomized-controlled trial. Int J Rehabil Res 37(3):236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nudo RJ et al (1996) Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science 272(5269):1791–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smania N et al (2010) Rehabilitation procedures in the management of spasticity. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 46(3):423–438Google Scholar