Neuro-Developmental Treatment: meh.

I'm going to copy some of my favorite quotes about NDT/Bobath. The quotes themselves are links that will take you to the reference.

"The NDT approach was not found effective in the care of stroke patients in the hospital setting. Health care professionals need to reconsider the use of this approach."

"There is now a growing body of research and opinion saying Bobath is out of date and obsolete, not least because of emerging data from neurosciences and should be abandoned in favour of an evidence-based approach."

"Families continue to be advised that they should seek Bobath- or NDT-trained therapists and avoid those who are not, which unfairly and, I would contend, unethically discredits those therapists and programs providing evidence-based treatment but are not using NDT."

"The Bobath concept is now so diverse that it can be difficult to know where it came from and what it is: there are so many derivatives of it that it could be considered a disservice to ... Bobath to continue to practise under the Bobath name."

(NDT trained therapists) "talk about quality of motor control and motor performance, but they do not understand how to measure quality... observation is not an appropriate way to say this works."

"It is hard to justify continuing to use Bobath nowadays, when the evidence to support other treatments is so much stronger.’

"It is almost impossible to define what Bobath/NDT is in current times given that the approach has become so diverse, and in all probability, one needs to go back to the original Bobath ideas to understand what it is."

"Results show no evidence proving the effectiveness of NDT or supporting NDT as the optimal type of treatment..."

"There was no evidence of superiority of Bobath on sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb, dexterity, mobility, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness."

The following quote is my personal favorite. NDT has a long history of taking the hard work of researchers and exclaiming "That's NDT!" They then proceed to screw up a perfectly good treatment option by smearing Bobath/NDT all over it.

"I refer to (followers of Berta and Karel Bobath) as the ‘torch carriers’, likening them to those who ‘carry a torch’ for someone in a romantic sense, something which is typically not reciprocated or based in present day reality."

"A disconcerting facet of the torch bearer approach is that therapy principles and programs developed by other innovative clinical researchers or scientists are now considered an integral part of NDT or Bobath. Why does this method have the right to pull in everything that comes into its path like a supernova that becomes a black hole?"

Study
systematic review
systematic review
systematic review
a great non-scientific discussion here

Neuro-Developmental Treatment. That's a lot of syllables. Very scientific sounding. It was developed by Berta Bobath, and for a long time was called The Bobath concept. Let’s just call it NDT/Bobath.

NDT/Bobath has been used on stroke survivors for decades and decades. When I was in school professors talked about it as if it was the most awesomest thing that had ever been awesome. It was the pinnacle. But it was complicated. It was so complicated you couldn't even learn it in school. You have to learn it from other NDT/Bobath practitioners. You could've gone to the Harvard school of physical therapy (if there was one -- which there isn't) and you still couldn't learn NDT/Bobath. Which is a red flag right there. If it works so well it would be required.

Instead, after graduating you have to go and get "certified" by NDT/Bobath gurus. Those gurus would've learned from other gurus, and up the pyramid it goes. NDT/Bobath training is expensive. We're talking about thousands of dollars and weeks of a therapist's life.

What could they possibly be teaching for that amount of time and money? 

NDT/Bobath uses "patient handling" where if you touch the patient in a particular way the patient would get better. Which makes no sense. If you could touch somebody and make them better that would be really nice. Touching is great. "Hands-on" is something that no therapist seems to be able to get enough of. But does this hands-on treatment work for stroke? Is NDT/Bobath effective?

No and not really.

And how do I know this? Systematic reviews.  Systematic reviews can be used to figure out if anything is effective for anything -- at least in medicine. If you want to be sure that something is effective you turn to systematic reviews. It's basically a study of all the qualified studies of whatever the subject is. This study of studies either says the thing works, the thing doesn't work, or they don't know yet.

NDT/Bobath always does poorly in systematic reviews. And that should be the end of it, right? It doesn't work. Goodbye. But not so fast.

Imagine if you'd spent thousands of dollars and weeks of your life in training. And in some fancy underpantsy researcher comes up and says "That doesn't work." What would you do? I've been doing talks for years to therapists. I've heard every justification for continuing NDT/Bobath.

Here are some arguments made by NDT/Bobath therapists:

1. "There's research that says it works, and research that says it doesn't work. Its 'he said she said' I choose to believe the research that says it works."

There are individual studies that say that NDT/Bobath works. But this is why scientists insist that studies be replicated. Individual studies prove little. The real question is, what do all the studies say? Large groups of studies, from researchers around the world, can be looked at and analyzed en masse. These "studies of studies" are called meta- analyses and systematic reviews. For NDT/Bobath there are quite a few; links below. They all come to the same conclusion: NDT is not particularly effective.

2. "NDT incorporates all the latest research into NDT. Therefore NDT is research-based."

I call this the "Horshella." 

Person 1: "I love horseradish."  
Person 2: "Well I love Nutella!" 
Person 1: "Oh, horseradish tastes great with Nutella." 

Maybe. But we should probably test it before we market "Horshella". Smearing NDT/Bobath all over well run clinical trials does not make NDT/Bobath research-based. In fact, it destroys the original research by adding a debilitating confounding variable. Adding NDT/Bobath to a well researched intervention may make that intervention better, worse, or not affect it at all. But the original research was never done with NDT/Bobath, so we'll never know. Stealing other people's research and glomming it does not make your intervention research-based. All you've done is hijacked well run clinical trials, and in the process made everyone look bad.

3. "I don't need research to tell me something works. I've seen it work."

The world is flat. And I can prove it. Look out the window. See? I know global warming is not happening. When I got out of the shower this morning I was freezing! The point is: Clinicians are not blinded, they don't gather and analyze data, they don't have a control group, there is no elimination of confounds and on and on. Simply: Clinical observation won't tell you if A works better than B.


4. "Research doesn't know what works so I can use anything I want."

Here is the American Heart Association Scientific Statement on the Rehabilitation Care of the Stroke Patient. It mentions constraint induced therapy, electrical stimulation, robotics, etc. It not only doesn't recommend NDT, it doesn't even mention NDT.

5. "What do I use for very low level survivors? They can't move and/or can't follow directions. So, I move them. At least I'm doing something."

Nothing else stops the plague so we're sticking with leeches. (The difference is that leeches may actually do harm. NDT does not do harm except in the sense that it leeches (!) $$ that could be better spent elsewhere.) 

Remember: There are only two kinds of true paralysis after stroke: Spastic and flaccid. Most survivors can move. Many, however are told not to move on their own because its bad movement, and will cause more bad movement. And who suggested bad movement will cause more bad movement (which is not true)? Bobath! Bobath called the movement after stroke "pathological" and insisted it be suppressed.  I call this the "The more you move the worse you'll get" philosophy.

Here are my suggestions:

• If you have a therapist that's doing NDT/Bobath, have them read this blog entry. 
• If you're a therapist doing NDT/Bobath, consider the evidence.

Bobath: The more you move, the worse you'll get

I've made my position on Bobath/NDT pretty clear (hint, I'm not a devotee). One of the many things Bobath was clearly wrong about was the effect of effort on spasticity. Bobath weirdly believed that using spastic muscles would increase spasticity. The way she put it in her book Adult Hemiplegia was, "Effort leads to an increase in spasticity." This is the way the thinking goes: Since movement poststroke requires effort, movement increases spasticity. Distilled, the philosophy was pretty clear: The more you move, the worse you'll get. Later in her book she doubled down on this concept. "The use of effort... will only reinforce the existing released tonic reflexes and, with it, increase spasticity."
 Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.  
(Here are the references...)

Note: CIT requires a lot of effort.

And it's more than just wrong, it obfuscates the issue for clinicians trying to find answers. I'm guessing, but at least 80% of all seminars for stroke recovery revolve around the Bobath/NDT. So clinicians learn it. And it wastes researcher's time, effort and funding. Because clinicians learn and believe it, researchers often have to go and "prove the negative." Researchers have successfully debunked the concept that effort increases spasticity. Because effort reestablishes cortical control over spastic muscles, spasticity is actually reduced. 

"This evidence is not compatible with the underlying assumptions of the Bobath approach." 
(From the 3rd article referenced, above) 

  ©Stronger After Stroke Blog 

Use what you've got to get what you need.

If you've had a stroke, your spinal cord still works fine. The spinal cord takes over some aspects of movement. The first step in this process of the spinal cord taking over is spasticity. The brain can't move you, so spasticity, generated in the spinal cord, takes over. And as much as we hate spasticity, things could be worse. Spasticity is better than nothing. "Nothing" in this case would be a completely flaccid affected ("bad") side. And being flaccid is worse than being spastic. Trust me on this.

But if we go a step beyond spasticity towards recovery there is an intermediate step. This intermediate step is known as synergy. The spinal cord basically allows for basic movements. The brain is not working, the spinal cord takes over, and the spinal cord allows very basic movements.

The synergies, although often disparaged by clinicians, are brilliant. In the upper extremity, synergy allows for the most important movement you can imagine: 

 

Feeding. It looks like this...

 

In the lower extremity the flexor synergy looks very much like a stepping pattern.

Clinicians have, for 40 or 50 years or so, said that synergies are bad. I disagree. Synergies can be used in a way that replicates good coordinated movement. Synergies give you the ability to at least attempt to replicate a normal movement. Enough attempts and the brain rewires and the synergies are discarded.

Watch this video. This stroke survivor (Brian Redd) is on the right track... use what you have to get more. 

(At 2:35 he provides a stellar description of the flexor and extensor synergies of the leg).

Exercising the Brain after Stroke

What drives stroke recovery? This question is both complicated and profoundly simple. It’s complicated because recovery involves rewiring the brain, and the brain is...complicated. It’s simple because the brain rewires in response to very simple instructions. In fact, these instructions have been known to athletes, musicians and other skilled workers for thousands of years. 

In the rehab clinic, exercises are called "thera ex (short for therapeutic exercise).

Therapists usually want to know which are the best thera ex for helping stroke survivors recover.       Beyond exercising, the other big option used in clinics are collectively called handling techniques. Handling techniques are just like they sound, the therapist moves you. Handling techniques, if you believe the research, don't much help. (If they did, I'd pay someone to "handle me" into being a better skier!). Exercise, for its part, is great! Exercise makes the muscles that need strengthening, stronger. The problem is, exercise is only mildly effective at changing the brain-- and stroke is a brain injury. Let me put it this way: a muscle can be strong, but useless because it does not know what to do. "Muscle memory" does not exist. The brain controls while muscles can only do two things: contract and relax. It's the brain stupid. 

Consider the one stroke recovery option that has consistently done really well in research, constraint induced therapy (CIT). In CIT, there are no specific exercises. Movement is required, however. The movements required during CIT very little resemble thera ex because focus is on repetitive practice, not muscle strengthening. And there are no handling techniques. In fact, CIT is decidedly and pointedly hands-off. It is cause of some curiosity among researchers why this hands-off philosophy is so difficult for therapists to accept. The only way of driving cortical change towards recovery is through volitional efforts by the stroke survivor. These efforts are actively encouraged no matter how ugly, synergistic or uncoordinated they are. Edward Taub, the person who developed CIT is a psychologist. As he was developing CIT in animal models, handling techniques and exrcises may have been the furthest thing from his mind. The closest, certainly, was operant conditioning which does appear to change the brain. Stroke is a brain injury, not a problem specific to muscle weakness. The term “neuromuscular re-education” is used a lot in PT and OT. In fact, you can bill for it. But the term is a misnomer. If it was an honest term it would be "motor-cortical reduction", or "movement reeducation." Relearning how to move after stroke has little to do with the muscles and everything to do with the brain. Stroke recovery involves brain reeducation. Different focus, different organ, different paradigm, different rules, different outcome measures.