Hand Function pp 107-114 | Cite as

Hand Function in Stroke

  • Osman Hakan GündüzEmail author
  • Özün Bayindir


Stroke is a common health problem and is a leading cause of adult disability with upper limb impairment. Approximately half of the patients remain permanently disabled despite the completion of rehabilitation. Deficits are especially prevalent in the hand, and these physical limitations directly affect activities of daily living (ADL). An important issue in hand rehabilitation in stroke patients has been how to regain the best function. Since the improvement of dexterity is a major goal of stroke rehabilitation, it is important to identify appropriate measures to determine functional recovery. There are numerous scales, assessments, and tests that have been described to examine qualitative properties in patients with stroke. Early predictors for dexterity of the paretic limb should therefore inform treatment plans targeted at effective recovery and better prognosis. Rehabilitation protocols should be aimed at modifying neural plasticity to improve motor performance and maintain the interactions between them. Different approaches of hand dexterity have been described in addition to conventional therapy, including constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT), bilateral arm training, motor imagery, mirror therapy, and robot-aided training. The key principles of stroke rehabilitation include accelerated early rehabilitation, a functional approach targeted at task-oriented activities and intense practice.


  1. 1.
    Warlow CP, van Gijn J, Dennis MS, et al. Stroke: practical management. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2008. p. 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:2181–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dijkerman HC, Wood VA, Langton HR. Long-term outcome after discharge from a stroke rehabilitation unit. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1996;30:538–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pandyan AD, Cameron M, Powell J, Stott DJ, Granat MH. Contractures in the post-stroke wrist: a pilot study of its time course of development and its association with upper limb recovery. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:88–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Higgins J, Mayo NE, Desrosiers J, Salbach NM, Ahmed S. Upper-limb function and recovery in the acute phase poststroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:65–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trombly CA. Stroke. In: Trombly AC, editor. Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction. Baltimore: Willaims and Wilkins; 1989. p. 454–71.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lannin NA, Horsley SA, Herbert R, McCluskey A, Cusick A. Splinting the hand in the functional position after brain impairment: a randomized, controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:297–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhakta BB. Management of spasticity in stroke. Br Med Bull. 2000;56(2):476–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamper DG, Fischer HC, Cruz EG, Rymer WZ. Weakness is the primary contributor to finger impairment in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(9):1262–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz EG, Waldinger HC, Kamper DG. Kinetic and kinematic workspaces of the index finger following stroke. Brain. 2005;128(Pt 5):1112–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seo NJ, Fischer HW, Bogey RA, Rymer WZ, Kamper DG. Use of visual force feedback to improve digit force direction during pinch grip in persons with stroke: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(1):24–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patten C, Lexell J, Brown HE. Weakness and strength training in persons with poststroke hemiplegia: rationale, method, and efficacy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(3A):293–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Au-Yeung SS, Hui-Chan CW. Predicting recovery of dexterous hand function in acute stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(5):394–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Teasell R, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal S, Jutai J, Speechley M. 9th edition of the stroke rehabilitation evidence-based review. 9th ed. Canadian Stroke Network, September 2006,
  15. 15.
    Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16(3):232–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39:386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res. 1985;5:24–33.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50(6):311–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beebe JA, Lang CE. Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33(2):96–103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kunkel A, Kopp B, Müller G, Villringer K, Villringer A, Taub E, Flor H. Constraint induced movement therapy for motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(6):624–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wolf SL, LeCraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989;104:125–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sezer N, Yavuzer G, Sivrioglu K, Basaran P, Koseoglu BF. Clinimetric properties of the Duruoz Hand Index in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:309–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zimmermann-Schlatter A, Schuster C, Puhan MA, Siekierka E, Steurer J. Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2008;5:8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khan CM, Oesch PR, Gamper UN, Kool JP, Beer S. Potential effectiveness of three different treatment approaches to improve minimal to moderate arm and hand function after stroke—a pilot randomized clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25(11):1032–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kollen BJ, Lennon S, Lyons B, Wheatley-Smith L, Scheper M, Buurke JH, Halfens J, Geurts ACH, Kwakel G. The effectiveness of the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: what is the evidence? Stroke. 2009;40:e89–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taub E, Uswatte G, Pidikiti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy: a new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation—a clinical review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:237–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siebers A, Oberg U, Skargren E. The effect of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on spasticity and motor function of the affected arm in patients with chronic stroke. Physiother Can. 2010;62(4):388–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolf SL, Thompson PA, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Blanton SR, Nichols-Larsen DS, Morris DM, Uswatte G, Taub E, Light KE, Sawaki L. The EXCITE stroke trial comparing early and delayed constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke. 2010;41:2309–15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L, Gatti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD004433.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCombe Waller S, Whitall J. Bilateral arm training: why and who benefits? NeuroRehabilitation. 2008;23(1):29–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stewart KC, Cauraugh JH, Summers JJ. Bilateral movement training and stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci. 2006;244(1–2):89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stoykov ME, Lewis GN, Corcos DM. Comparison of bilateral and unilateral training for upper extremity hemiparesis in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(9):945–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jackson PL, Lafleur MF, Malouin F, Richards C, Doyon J. Potential role of mental practice using motor imagery in neurologic rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(8):1133–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Munzert J, Lorey B, Zentgraf K. Cognitive motor processes: the role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Res Rev. 2009;60(2):306–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mulder T. Motor imagery and action observation: cognitive tools for rehabilitation. J Neural Transm. 2007;114(10):1265–78.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Michielsen ME, Selles RW, Van Der Geest JN, Eckhardt M, Yavuzer G, Stam HJ, Smits M, Ribbers GM, Bussmann JB. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(3):223–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yavuzer G, Selles R, Sezer N, Sutbeyaz S, Bussmann JB, Koseoglu F, Atay MB, Stam HJ. Mirror therapy improves hand function in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(3):393–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thieme H, Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Behrens J, Dohle C. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD008449.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oujamaa L, Relave I, Froger J, Mottet D, Pelissier JY. Rehabilitation of arm function after stroke. Literature review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2009;52(3):269–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):111–21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zollo L, Gallotta E, Guglielmelli E, Sterzi S. Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: new tools for upper limb therapy and assessment in chronic stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;47(2):223–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mehrholz J, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving arm function and activities of daily living after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD006876.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Masiero S, Armani M, Rosati G. Upper-limb robot-assisted therapy in rehabilitation of acute stroke patients: focused review and results of new randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):355–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lannin NA, Herbert RD. Is hand splinting effective for adults following stroke? A systematic review and methodologic critique of published research. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:807–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pizzi A, Carlucci G, Falsini C, Verdesca S, Grippo A. Application of a volar static splint in poststroke spasticity of the upper limb. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1855–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pitts DG, O’Brien SP. Splinting the hand to enhance motor control and brain plasticity. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15(5):456–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMarmara University School of MedicineIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations