Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures.

BACKGROUND: Contractures are a common complication of neurological and non-neurological conditions, and are characterised by a reduction in joint mobility. Stretch is widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures. However, it is not clear whether stretch is effective. This review is an update of the original 2010 version of this review. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine the effects of stretch on contractures in people with, or at risk of developing, contractures.The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions, spasticity and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2015 we searched CENTRAL, DARE, HTA; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; SCI-EXPANDED; PEDro and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purpose of treating or preventing contractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions and adverse events. We evaluated outcomes in the short term (up to one week after the last stretch) and in the long term (more than one week). We expressed effects as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses with a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-nine studies with 2135 participants met the inclusion criteria. No study performed stretch for more than seven months. Just over half the studies (51%) were at low risk of selection bias; all studies were at risk of detection bias for self reported outcomes such as pain and at risk of performance bias due to difficulty of blinding the intervention. However, most studies were at low risk of detection bias for objective outcomes including range of motion, and the majority of studies were free from attrition and selective reporting biases. The effect of these biases were unlikely to be important, given that there was little benefit with treatment. There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on joint mobility in people with neurological conditions (MD 2°; 95% CI 0° to 3°; 26 studies with 699 participants) or non-neurological conditions (SMD 0.2, 95% CI 0 to 0.3, 19 studies with 925 participants).In people with neurological conditions, it was uncertain whether stretch had clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 5 studies with 174 participants) or activity limitations (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 8 studies with 247 participants). No trials examined the short-term effects of stretch on quality of life or participation restrictions in people with neurological conditions. Five studies involving 145 participants reported eight adverse events including skin breakdown, bruising, blisters and pain but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data.In people with non-neurological conditions, there was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1; 7 studies with 422 participants) and moderate-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life (SMD 0.3, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.7; 2 studies with 97 participants). The short-term effect of stretch on activity limitations (SMD 0.1; 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3; 5 studies with 356 participants) and participation restrictions were uncertain (SMD -0.2; 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1; 2 studies with 192 participants). Nine studies involving 635 participants reported 41 adverse events including numbness, pain, Raynauds' phenomenon, venous thrombosis, need for manipulation under anaesthesia, wound infections, haematoma, flexion deficits and swelling but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important effects on joint mobility in people with or without neurological conditions if performed for less than seven months. Sensitivity analyses indicate results were robust in studies at risk of selection and detection biases in comparison to studies at low risk of bias. Sub-group analyses also suggest the effect of stretch is consistent in people with different types of neurological or non-neurological conditions. The effects of stretch performed for periods longer than seven months have not been investigated. There was moderate- and high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life or pain in people with non-neurological conditions, respectively. The short-term effects of stretch on quality of life and pain in people with neurological conditions, and the short-term effects of stretch on activity limitations and participation restrictions for people with and without neurological conditions are uncertain.

Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures.

BACKGROUND: Contractures are a common complication of neurological and musculoskeletal conditions, and are characterised by a reduction in joint mobility. Stretch is widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures. However, it is not clear whether stretch is effective. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of stretch on contractures in people with, or at risk of, contractures. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches were conducted on CENTRAL, DARE, HTA (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE; CINAHL; EMBASE; SCI-EXPANDED; and PEDro (April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purpose of treating or preventing contractures were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes of interest were joint mobility and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were pain, spasticity, activity limitation and participation restriction. Outcomes were evaluated immediately after intervention, in the short term (one to seven days) and in the long term (> one week). Effects were expressed as mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analyses were conducted with a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five studies with 1391 participants met the inclusion criteria. No study performed stretch for more than seven months. In people with neurological conditions, there was moderate to high quality evidence to indicate that stretch does not have clinically important immediate (mean difference 3 degrees ; 95% CI 0 to 7), short-term (mean difference 1 degrees ; 95% CI 0 to 3) or long-term (mean difference 0 degrees ; 95% CI -2 to 2) effects on joint mobility. The results were similar for people with non-neurological conditions. For all conditions, there is little or no effect of stretch on pain, spasticity, activity limitation, participation restriction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stretch does not have clinically important effects on joint mobility in people with, or at risk of, contractures if performed for less than seven months. The effects of stretch performed for periods longer than seven months have not been investigated.

Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review.

QUESTION: Is stretch effective for the treatment and prevention of contractures in people with neurological and non-neurological conditions? DESIGN: A Cochrane Systematic Review with meta-analyses of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: People with or at risk of contractures. INTERVENTION: Trials were considered for inclusion if they compared stretch to no stretch, or stretch plus co-intervention to co-intervention only. The stretch could be administered in any way. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was joint mobility. Two sets of meta-analyses were conducted with a random-effects model: one for people with neurological conditions and the other for people with non-neurological conditions. The quality of evidence supporting the results of the two sets of meta-analyses was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 549 participants examined the effectiveness of stretch in people with neurological conditions, and provided useable data. The pooled mean difference was 2 deg (95% CI 0 to 3) favouring stretch. This was equivalent to a relative change of 2% (95% CI 0 to 3). Eighteen studies involving 865 participants examined the effectiveness of stretch in people with non-neurological conditions, and provided useable data. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.2 SD (95% CI 0 to 0.3) favouring stretch. This translated to an absolute mean increase of 1 deg (95% CI 0 to 2) and a relative change of 1% (95% CI 0 to 2). The GRADE level of evidence was high for both sets of meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Stretch does not have clinically important effects on joint mobility. [Harvey LA, Katalinic OM, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Lannin NA, Schurr K (2017) Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 67-75].

Effectiveness of stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures in people with neurological conditions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Contractures are a disabling complication of neurological conditions that are commonly managed with stretch. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures. The review is part of a more-detailed Cochrane review. Only the results of the studies including patients with neurological conditions are reported here. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were conducted in June 2010 in the following computerized databases: Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, SCI-EXPANDED, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review included randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purposes of treating or preventing contractures in people with neurological conditions. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome measures were joint mobility (range of motion) and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were pain, spasticity, activity limitation, and participation restriction. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies provide moderate-quality evidence that stretch has a small immediate effect on joint mobility (mean difference=3°, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0° to 5°) and high-quality evidence that stretch has little or no short-term or long-term effects on joint mobility (mean difference=1° and 0°, respectively, 95% CI=0° to 3° and -2° to 2°, respectively). There is little or no effect of stretch on pain, spasticity, and activity limitation. LIMITATIONS: No studies were retrieved that investigated the effects of stretch for longer than 6 months. CONCLUSION: Regular stretch does not produce clinically important changes in joint mobility, pain, spasticity, or activity limitation in people with neurological conditions.

Contracture management for people with spinal cord injuries.

Contractures are a common and disabling problem for people with spinal cord injuries. To date, contractures have largely been managed with physical interventions such as stretch and passive movements. These are typically administered either manually or with the assistance of various orthoses, devices or aids. However, the results of recent clinical trials question the effectiveness of these interventions. They indicate that therapists should not expect to see a change in joint mobility or muscle extensibility from stretches applied for less than 30 minutes a day over less than 3 months. This suggests that contractures may be a far more complex and multifactorial problem to manage than previously assumed. This paper challenges clinicians and researchers to reappraise the effectiveness of current contracture management.