1. Archimedes and the Battle of Syracuse Using mirrors to burn
the Romans ships
2. The Reflecting Pool
3. MIRROR THERAPY Aswathi.p 1st yr Msc Nursing Al Shifa college
of nursing
4. MIRROR THERAPY Unveiled by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran &
Rogers 1996 Recognize & integrate mismatch propioception
&visual feed
5. MIRROR THERAPY
6. EQUIPEMENTS Mirror box
7. MIRROR THERAPY
8. TECHNIQUE places good limb into one side, & stump in to
other, looks into mirror on the side with good limb
&makes"mirror symmetric movement, as a symphony conductor
might, or as we do when we clap our hands.
9. PRINCIPLE
10. MIRROR NEURON Frontal & parietal lobes Rich in motor
command neurons Fires to orchestrate sequence of muscle
twitches
11. MIRROR THERAPY & STROKE
12. Residue of mirror neurons Incomplete lesion STROKE
Cont.
13. Cont Visual feed back - Revive motor neurons Areas are
temporarily inactive Does not reach threshold
14. MIRROR THERAPY &PHANTOM LIMB PAIN
15. Cont Learned pain Vivid presence of limb Amputation
16. Cont Activation of mirror neurons Mirror visual feed back
Learned immobilization
17. Cont Free from phantom limb pain Start to imitate action
performance
18. MIRROR THERAPY & CRPS
19. con Accidental signals to limb evokes memories of pain
Attempt to move causes pain Inflammation
20. Unlearning of learned pain & learned immobilization
Conveys visual illusion MIRROR VISUAL FEED BACK
22. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mirror therapy for improving motor
function after stroke
23. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after
stroke
24. ABSTRACT Citation: Thieme H, Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Behrens J,
Dohle C. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after
stroke.
25. Cont.. Background Mirror therapy is used to improve motor
function after stroke. During mirror therapy, a mirror is placed in
the patients midsagittal plane, thus reflecting movements of the
non-paretic side as if it were the affected side
26. Cont.. Objectives To summarise effectiveness of mirror
therapy compared with no treatment, placebo or sham therapy
27. Cont.. To summarise effectiveness of mirror therapy for
improving motor function, activities of daily living, pain &
visuospatial neglect in patients after stroke.
28. Cont.. Methods Randomised controlled trials &
randomised cross-over trials comparing mirror therapy with any
control intervention for patients after stroke.
29. Cont Type of participants Paresis of upper or lower limb,
or both, caused by stroke (all types, severity & stages of
stroke) aged over 18 yrs.
30. Cont.. Types of outcome measures Post-intervention (or
change scores between pre- and post intervention measures) and at
follow-up after six months or longer.
31. Cont.. Primary outcomes Motor function Secondary outcomes
Measures of activities of daily living
32. Cont.. Data collection and analysis Two review authors
independently selected trials based on the inclusion criteria,
documented methodological quality of studies and extracted data. We
analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for
continuous variables.
33. Cont.. Resuls Included 14 studies with a total of 567
participants that compared mirror therapy with other
interventions.
34. Cont.. post-intervention data: SMD 0.61; 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.0; P = 0.002; change scores: SMD 1.04; 95%
CI 0.57 to 1.51; P < 0.0001
35. Cont.. However, effects on motor function are influenced by
the type of control intervention. Additionally, mirror therapy may
improve activities of daily living.
36. Cont.. (SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60; P = 0.02). We found
a significant positive effect on pain (SMD -1.10; 95% CI 2.10 to
-0.09; P =0.03) which is influenced by patient population.
37. Cont.. We found limited evidence for improving visuospatial
neglect (SMD 1.22; 95% CI 0.24 to 2.19; P = 0.01). The effects on
motor function were stable at follow-up assessment after six
months.
38. A small spark can ignite thousands of light
39. Small spark to ignite thousands of hope among stroke
survivors & amputees