Kinematic analysis of head, trunk, and pelvic motion during mirror therapy for stroke patients.
Jinmin Kim, Jaehoon Yi, Chang-Ho Song
PMID 29184290WHAT IT FOUND
Mirror size and angle changed head, trunk, and pelvis motion in three stroke patients.
The screen-based setup differed from the mirror setups on posture and weight-shift measures, but function was not tested.
Key findings
01In the three stroke patients analysed, head, trunk, and pelvis angles differed across mirror size and mirror angle.
02The screen-based setup differed from the big and small mirror setups on several head, trunk, and pelvis angles in the stroke group.
03In the stroke group, pelvic centre-of-pressure and centre-of-gravity excursions differed between mirror setups and the screen-based setup.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only three stroke patients were analysed, and two stroke participants did not complete, so generalisation is difficult. The conditions were performed in a fixed order, so the study cannot separate setup effects from order effects. The screen-based condition used a monitor and 0° setup, while mirror conditions used physical mirrors at 90° or 60°, so device and angle were not separated. Participants had to be at least six months after stroke, score above 24 on a cognitive screen, and have fair or better sitting balance, so results may not apply to patients who cannot sit or follow instructions. The study measured posture and motion, not upper limb function or recovery.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the screen-based setup improves upper limb function or should replace mirror therapy. This study measured head, trunk, pelvis, and pressure-shift motion in three stroke patients and did not test clinical outcomes.