Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Muscle stretching for treatment and prevention of contracture in people with spinal cord injury


Contracture, or reduced joint mobility, is a common and disabling sequel of spinal cord injury. The primary intervention for the treatment and prevention of contracture is regular stretch to soft tissues. While the rationale for this intervention appears sound, the effectiveness of stretching has not been verified with well designed clinical trials. One recent randomised trial suggests there is no clinically worthwhile effect from a typical stretch protocol applied to spinal cord injured patients. Despite the negative results of this first trial, we argue that therapists should continue administering stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture until the results of further studies emerge. To maximise the probability of attaining a clinically worthwhile effect, we suggest that therapists stretch soft tissues for long periods (at least 20 min, and perhaps for as long as 12 h a day). Practical suggestions are given on how to readily provide spinal cord injured patients with sustained stretch to key joints and muscle groups. Stretch is most likely to be effective if started before the onset of contracture. Soft tissues most at risk should be targeted, particularly if contracture is likely to impose functionally important limitations.


Contractures (reduced joint mobility) are due to loss of extensibility in soft tissues spanning joints, and are a common complication of spinal cord injury.1,2 One study found that spinal cord injured patients had, on average, seven contractures (SD=6.2) at between 6 and 7 weeks after injury.1 Contractures are undesirable for many reasons but primarily because they prevent the performance of motor tasks.1,3,4,5 For example, elbow flexion contractures make it difficult for tetraplegics with paralysis of triceps muscles to bear weight through the upper limbs, and hence attain independence with transfers.6,7,8 Contractures also create unsightly deformities and are thought to predispose patients to spasticity, pressure areas, sleep disturbances and pain.1,2,5,8,9,10,11,12

Mechanisms of contracture

Contractures are either neurally or non-neurally mediated.13 Neurally mediated contractures are due to spasticity (ie, involuntary reflex contraction of muscles)13,14,15,16,17 and are a common sequelae of upper motor neuron lesions.18 Spasticity is usually managed with medication.18 While some believe that stretching also induces functionally important and lasting reductions in spasticity, this is yet to be verified with good quality studies.

Non-neurally mediated contractures are due to structural adaptations of soft tissues (for reviews see Gossman et al,19 Akeson et al,20 and Herbert21,22). Animal studies23,24,25 indicate that such changes occur in response to prolonged immobilisation, particularly immobilisation of soft tissues in shortened positions. Ten days immobilisation of rabbit ankles in plantarflexed position (the shortened position of the plantarflexor muscles) results in approximately a 10% reduction in resting length of soleus muscle-tendon units,25 which is sufficient to produce functionally significant loss of ankle joint mobility. Muscle shortening is associated with a decrease in the number of sarcomeres, changes in the alignment of intramuscular connective tissues and a decrease in tendon resting length.23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34

Effects of muscle stretching

Stretch has become a widely accepted means of treating and preventing contractures in people with spinal cord injuries.35,36,37 For instance, it is now accepted practice in spinal cord injury units for therapists to routinely administer between 2 and 5 min of stretch a day to each major group of soft tissues, particularly when patients are confined to bed immediately after injury. Consequently, it is not unusual for therapists to spend between 30 and 60 min a day with each patient, administering stretches. Despite the time, effort and resources devoted to administering stretches in this way, few rigorously designed studies have examined the effectiveness of this intervention.38

The use of stretch to treat and prevent contractures is usually justified by animal studies23,39 that indicate the deleterious structural and morphological changes associated with immobilisation in shortened positions can be prevented25 or reversed23 by prolonged immobilisation in lengthened positions (ie, continuous stretch). Continuous stretch of this kind appears to trigger remodelling of soft tissues. However, while animal studies show that continuous stretch can reverse deleterious length adaptations in muscles, the effect of shorter periods of stretch is less clear. Only two studies29,40 have investigated the effects of short periods of daily stretch on soft tissue extensibility. These studies found that when the soleus muscles of mice were immobilised at short lengths, deleterious length adaptations such as decreases in sarcomere number and muscle resting length could be partly prevented by interrupting the immobilisation with as little as 15 min of stretch each day. Thirty minutes of stretch was enough to completely prevent these changes. No study has yet examined the effect of less than 15 min daily stretch in an animal model, though stretches of this duration are typically applied in the clinic.

A large number of human studies have examined the effects of stretch on the extensibility of soft tissues. However, the majority of these studies have only examined the effects of stretch on joint mobility and range of motion within minutes of the cessation of the stretch intervention. Increases in joint mobility observed soon after the cessation of stretching are primarily due to viscous deformation,41,42,43,44,45,46,47 and need not reflect the structural adaptations of soft tissues required for lasting increases in extensibility.22 For this reason, studies which only report measurements taken within minutes of the removal of stretch cannot provide evidence about the effectiveness of particular types of muscle stretching for the treatment and prevention of contracture. Only studies that measure joint mobility many hours or days after the removal of stretch, when the transient effects of viscous deformation have subsided, can be validly used for this purpose.

To our knowledge only one randomised study38 has investigated lasting effects of stretch on contracture in people with spinal cord injury. This study examined the effect of 4 weeks of 30 min daily stretches (7.5 N.m) to the ankles of recently injured paraplegics and tetraplegics. Ankle mobility was measured 24 h and again 1 week after the removal of stretch. Despite excellent statistical power, no treatment effect was found. The authors speculated that this may have been because co-interventions (such as routine positioning of ankles at 90 degrees in wheelchairs) were sufficient to reverse or prevent plantarflexion contractures, and muscle stretching provided no additional benefit. Alternatively, it may have been that the stretch protocol was of insufficient intensity or duration. These findings differ from those of two well-designed randomised trials on other populations, both of which found a therapeutic effect with 4–24 h stretch a day in head-injured4 and elderly bedridden patients.48 However, the results of both these studies may reflect viscous deformation rather than lasting increases in tissue extensibility. Clearly, therefore, more randomised clinical trials are needed to determine if stretch is effective for the treatment and prevention of contractures, and if so, to clarify the optimal dosage of stretch.

Clinical implications

Optimal stretch protocol

The challenge for therapists is to use the available evidence to make reasonable decisions about clinical practice. It is disconcerting that the first randomised clinical trial on stretching in spinal cord injured patients found no clinically worthwhile effect, despite the application of daily stretches well in excess of those typically used in clinical practice (ie, despite the application of 30 min of stretch per day). However, the rationale supporting the use of stretch is strong. Given the serious consequences of contractures, we do not recommend that therapists discontinue stretching on the basis of one negative randomised trial. Instead it is probably appropriate that therapists continue to provide stretches to spinal cord injured patients, at least until further randomised trials indicate otherwise. In the meantime, it may be prudent to apply stretches for as long as is practically possible (ie, for at least 20 min, and perhaps for as long as 12 h a day) in order to maximise the likelihood of attaining a therapeutically worthwhile effect.

If stretches are to be applied for more than a few minutes a day, therapists need to move away from the labour-intensive tradition of manually applying stretches with their hands. Instead, limbs should be positioned with at-risk soft tissues in stretched positions, and where possible positioning programs should be incorporated into patients' rehabilitation programs and daily lives. Often only relatively simple equipment is required for this purpose. For example, the hamstring muscles of patients confined to bed can be readily stretched for sustained periods of time with a splint and pulley device attached to the bed (Figure 1). The extrinsic finger flexor muscles of the hand can be stretched with a simple wooden device (Figure 2), and the shoulder extensor muscles of seated tetraplegics can be stretched by positioning the arms on high tables (Figure 3). Hand splints are also an effective way of positioning soft tissues in lengthened positions. A splint that immobilises the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints in flexion and interphalangeal (IP) joints in extension may help prevent MCP hyperextension and IP flexion contractures49 (both of which are common in tetraplegics with lesions at or above C5, particularly if oedema is also present). Stretches applied in any of these ways can be readily sustained and easily administered by therapists and carers. Of course care needs to be taken to ensure that strategies instigated to prevent contractures in one group of soft tissues does not promote contractures in the antagonistic group of soft tissues.

Figure 1

Method of positioning the hamstring muscles in a stretched position for patients confined to bed. The knee is maintained in extension with a knee extension splint while the hip is maintained in flexion with slings and pulleys attached overhead

Figure 2

Device to administer a prolonged stretch to the extrinsic finger flexor muscles. The hand and forearm is strapped into a simple wooden device that hinges at the wrist. Stretch is applied to the extrinsic finger flexor muscles by positioning the wrist in extension while the metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal joints are maintained in extension. This type of stretch may be indicated in incomplete tetraplegics with voluntary control of the finger flexor muscles but paralysis of the finger extensor muscles or in C5 and above tetraplegics. This type of stretch is inappropriate if attempting to promote a tenodesis grip

Figure 3

Method of administering a prolonged stretch to the shoulder extensor muscles. The arm is positioned on a high table with the shoulder in flexion

Preventing and anticipating contractures

It is widely believed that contractures can be more readily prevented than treated and that less stretch is required to maintain than increase the extensibility of soft tissues. Though the validity of these beliefs has not yet been substantiated, therapists are well advised to concentrate efforts on preventing contractures. For example, supination contractures of the forearm (a common contracture of tetraplegics with C5 lesions) may be prevented by ensuring patients spend equal lengths of time each day sitting with forearms pronated and supinated. Minor modifications to the arm rests of wheelchairs may be required, but otherwise this is a relatively simple positioning protocol to implement. In contrast, once supination contractures are established it is difficult to effectively stretch the forearm, and often cumbersome splints are required.50 In the same way, hip and shoulder adductor contractures may be prevented in patients confined to bed by simply positioning patients for at least some of each day with shoulders2 and legs abducted rather than adducted.

Factors that predispose patients to contractures

The skill of preventing contractures largely lies in accurately predicting them.51 At-risk soft tissues are those habitually held in shortened positions. Fortunately, it is possible to predict soft tissues likely to be held at short lengths by looking at factors such as the pattern of innervation, pain, oedema, independence with various activities of daily living (ADL), and the position in which the patient spends the majority of each day (ie, in bed or in a wheelchair; see Table 1). For example, patients with complete C5 and C6 tetraplegia are susceptible to elbow flexion contractures. These patients have paralysis of the triceps but not biceps muscles. Consequently, they tend to sit and lie with their elbows flexed. The problem is particularly apparent in patients nursed in a supine position for extended periods of time. From this position it is difficult for patients with paralysis of the triceps muscles to passively extend their elbows once flexed.

Table 1 A guide to the types and causes of contractures that tetraplegics and paraplegics are susceptible to developing

Pain increases susceptibility to contracture because it increases the tendency to contract non-paralysed muscles, which in turn increases the time soft tissues spend in shortened positions. Independence with activities of daily living also helps predict susceptibility to particular types of contactures. For instance, C6 tetraplegics who transfer independently throughout the day, passively extend their elbows while bearing weight through their upper limbs6,7,8 and are therefore less likely to develop elbow flexion contractures than more dependent C5 or C6 tetraplegics.

The pattern and extent of spasticity will also influence susceptibility to contracture.18 This is not only because spasticity directly influences the extensibility of muscles (ie, contributes to neurally-mediated contractures, as discussed above) but also because spasticity increases the time that muscles and surrounding soft tissues spend in shortened positions.13,16,52,53 For example, constant spasticity of elbow flexor muscles may increase the amount of time the elbow remains in a flexed posture, and hence initiate structural adaptations of the soft tissues spanning the flexor aspect of the elbow. However, just as spasticity can indirectly contribute to contracture, so too can it prevent it. Patients otherwise susceptible to elbow flexion contractures can benefit from regular and strong elbow extensor spasticity (this pattern of spasticity is more common in C5 than C6 tetraplegics), because the spasticity can act to minimise the length of time the elbow spends in a flexed position.

Implications of contractures for individuals with spinal cord injuries

The implications of slight losses of extensibility in soft tissues varies with level of motor function (see Table 1). Thus, while most contractures are undesirable, the prevention of some is more important than others. Slight loss of extensibility in the soft tissues spanning the flexor aspect of the elbow will have few functional implications for C5 tetraplegics unable to bear weight through the upper limbs. However, the same loss can prevent C6 tetraplegics from attaining independence with transfers.6,7,8 In the same way, slight loss of extensibility in soft tissues spanning the plantar aspect of the ankle (eg, the soleus muscle) will have little functional implication for a high-level wheelchair-dependent tetraplegic but marked implications for a walking low-level paraplegic. Clearly, concentrated effort should be directed at preventing loss of extensibility where such loss will impose important functional limitations.

Excessive tissue extensibility can hinder function

Sometimes excessive extensibility is just as undesirable as limited extensibility and can prevent patients from performing important functional tasks. Excessive extensibility in the hamstring muscles can prevent C6 tetraplegics from sitting unsupported on a bed with knees extended,37 a skill important for independent dressing and transferring. Provided the hamstring muscles are not excessively extensible, the passive length of the hamstring muscles prevents the patient falling forwards into full hip flexion37 (Figure 4a). However, the hamstring muscles can not prevent the body falling forward if they are too extensible (Figure 4c). Therefore patients with excessive hamstring extensibility are disadvantaged because they must rely on their upper limbs to support their body. On the other hand, limited hamstring extensibility will prevent the patient from positioning the center of mass anterior to the hips, causing the body to fall backwards (Figure 4b). In this instance at least, there is a fine line between sufficient and excessive extensibility, and some patients may benefit from strategies that promote, rather than prevent, loss of extensibility.

Figure 4

The influence of hamstring extensibility on the ability of C6 tetraplegics to sit with their hips flexed and knees extended. If the hamstring muscles have optimal extensibility (a), they will passively limit hip flexion while the knee is maintained in extension. Provided the center of mass of the trunk, head and arms are anterior to the hips, the patient will be able to sit unsupported and will be free to use upper limbs for purposeful tasks such as dressing. If the hamstring muscles have limited extensibility (b), tension in the hamstring muscles will passively prevent hip flexion and the patient will be unable to position the center of mass anterior to the hip joint. Consequently, the patient will tend to fall backwards and need to use the upper limbs to prop the body. If the hamstring muscles are excessively extensible (c), they will offer no resistance to hip flexion and the patient will fall forwards (head will fall between knees). In this scenario the patient will be dependent on their upper limbs to support the body

Limited tissue extensibility sometimes assists function

In unique circumstances, contractures can assist functional movement. An effective passive tenodesis grip in C6 and C7 tetraplegics depends on contractures in the flexor pollicis longus and extrinsic finger flexor muscles.54,55,56,57,58 Contractures in these muscles ensure that active wrist extension passively pulls the fingers and thumb into flexion. In this way, objects can be passively held between the thumb and index finger or in the palm of the hand. The challenge for therapists is to instigate appropriate interventions that promote loss of extensibility in the extrinsic finger and thumb flexor muscles while avoiding contractures in the joints of the hand.54


While stretch has become the cornerstone of physiotherapy practice and an integral aspect of spinal cord injury rehabilitation programs, confidence in the effectiveness of this intervention is not yet justified. Strategies that position soft tissues in stretched positions for prolonged periods of time may be most effective. Factors such as pattern of innervation, pain, spasticity, oedema and ability to perform functional activities will help predict contractures. Concentrated effort should be directed at preventing loss of extensibility where such loss will impose important functional limitations.


  1. 1

    Yarkony GM, Bass LM, Keenan V, Meyer PR . Contractures complicating spinal cord injury: incidence and comparison between spinal cord centre and general hospital acute care Paraplegia 1985 23: 265–271

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Scott JA, Donovan WH . The prevention of shoulder pain and contracture in the acute tetraplegia patient Paraplegia 1981 19: 313–319

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Kagaya H, Sharma M, Kobetic R, Marsolais EB . Ankle, knee, and hip moments during standing with and without joint contractures: Simulation study for functional electrical stimulation Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1998 77: 49–54

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Moseley AM . The effect of casting combined with stretching on passive ankle dorsiflexion in adults with traumatic head injuries Phys Ther 1997 77: 240–247

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Cooper JE, Shwedyk E, Quanbury AO, Miller J, Hildebrand D . Elbow joint restriction: effect on functional upper limb motion during performance of three feeding activities Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993 74: 805–809

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Harvey LA, Crosbie J . Weight bearing through flexed upper limbs in tetraplegics with paralyzed triceps brachii muscles Spinal Cord 1999 37: 780–785

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Harvey L, Crosbie J . Effect of elbow flexion contractures on the ability of C5 and C6 tetraplegics to perform a weight relief manoeuvre Phys Res Int 2001 6: 76–82

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Grover J, Gellman H, Waters RL . The effect of a flexion contracture of the elbow on the ability to transfer in patients who have tetraplegia at the sixth cervical level J Bone Jt Surg (Am) 1996 78: 1397–1400

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Freehafer AA . Flexion and supination deformities of the elbow in tetraplegics Paraplegia 1977 15: 221–225

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Dalyan M, Sherman A, Cardenas DD . Factors associated with contractures in acute spinal cord injury Spinal Cord 1998 36: 405–408

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Waring WP, Maynard FM . Shoulder pain in acute traumatic tetraplegia Paraplegia 1991 29: 37–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Silfverskiold J, Waters RL . Shoulder pain and functional disability in spinal cord injury patients Clin Orthop Rel Res 1991 272: 141–145

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Sinkjaer T et al. Non-reflex and reflex mediated ankle joint stiffness in multiple sclerosis patients with spasticity Muscle Nerve 1993 16: 69–76

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Herman R . The myotatic reflex. Clinico-physiological aspects of spasticity and contracture Brain 1970 93: 273–312

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Lamontagne A, Malouin F, Richards CL, Dumas F . Evaluation of reflex- and nonreflex-induced muscle resistance to stretch in adults with spinal cord injury using hand-held and isokinetic dynamometry Phys Ther 1998 78: 964–975

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    O'Dwyer NJ, Ada L . Reflex hyperexcitability and muscle contracture in relation to spastic hypertonia Curr Opin Neurol 1996 9: 451–455

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Sinkjaer T, Magnussen I . Passive, intrinsic and reflex-mediated stiffness in the ankle extensors of hemiparetic patients Brain 1994 117: 355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Dietz V . Spastic movement disorder Spinal Cord 2000 38: 389–393

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Gossman MR, Sahrmann SA, Rose SJ . Review of length-associated changes in muscle. Experimental evidence and clinical implications Phys Ther 1982 62: 1799–1808

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Akeson WH et al. Effects of immobilization on joints Clin Orthop Rel Res 1987 219: 28–37

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Herbert R . Adaptations of muscle and connective tissue In: Gass E and Refshauge K (eds) Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy: Clinical Science and Practice Butterworth-Heinemann: London 1995

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Herbert RD . The prevention and treatment of stiff joints. In: Crosbie W and McConnell J (eds) Key Issues in Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Butterworth Heinemann: London 1993 pp. 114–141

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Tabary JC, Tabary C, Tardieu C, Tardieu G, Goldspink G . Physiological and structural changes in the cats' soleus muscle due to immobilization at different lengths by plaster casts J Physiol 1972 224: 231–244

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Tabary JC, Tardieu C, Tardieu G, Tabary C . Experimental rapid sarcomere loss with concomitant hypoextensibility Muscle Nerve 1981 4: 198–203

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Herbert RD, Balnave RJ . The effect of position of immobilisation on resting length, resting stiffness, and weight of the soleus muscle of the rabbit J Orthop Res 1993 11: 358–366

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Williams PE, Goldspink G . The effect of immobilization on the longitudinal growth of striated muscle fibres J Anat 1973 116: 45–55

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Williams PE, Goldspink G . Changes in sarcomere length and physiological properties in immobilized muscle J Anat 1978 127: 459–468

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Williams PE, Catanese T, Lucey EG, Goldspink G . The importance of stretch and contractile activity in the prevention of connective tissue accumulation in muscle J Anat 1988 158: 109–114

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Williams PE . Effect of intermittent stretch on immobilised muscle Ann Rheum Dis 1988 47: 1014–1016

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Williams PE, Goldspink G . Connective tissue changes in immobilised muscle J Anat 1984 138: 343–350

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Goldspink G et al. Effect of denervation on the adaptation of sarcomere number and muscle extensibility to the functional length of the muscle J Physiol 1974 236: 733–742

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Goldspink DF . The influence of immobilization and stretch on protein turnover of rat skeletal muscle J Physiol 1977 264: 267–282

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Witzmann FA, Kim DH, Fitts RH . Hindlimb immobilisation: length-tension and contractile properties of skeletal muscle J Appl Phys 1982 53: 335–345

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Tardieu G, Thuilleux G, Tardieu C, Huet de la Tour E . Long-term effects of surgical elongation of the tendo calcaneus in the normal cat Dev Med Child Neurol 1979 21: 83–94

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Adkins HE . Clinics in Physical Therapy. Spinal Cord Injury Churchill Livingstone: New York 1985

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Bromley I . Tetraplegia and Paraplegia: a Guide for Physiotherapists Churchill Livingstone: New York 1976

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Somers MF . Spinal Cord Injury: Functional Rehabilitation Appleton and Lange: Norwalk, Connecticut 1992

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Harvey LA, Crosbie J, Herbert RD . Does regular stretch produce lasting increases in joint range of motion? A systematic review Phys Res Int 2001 in press

  39. 39

    Tardieu C, Tabary JC, Tardieu G, Tabary C . Adaptation of sarcomere numbers to the length imposed on the muscle. In: Guba F, Marechal G and Takacs O (eds) Mechanism of Muscle Adaptation to Functional Requirements Pergamon Press: Elmsford, NY 1971 pp. 99–114

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Williams PE . Use of intermittent stretch in the prevention of serial sarcomere loss in immobilised muscle Ann Rheum Dis 1990 49: 316–317

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Yang L et al. Effects of joint motion constraints on the gait of normal subjects and their implications on the further development of hybrid FES orthosis for paraplegic persons J Biomechanics 1996 29: 217–226

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Bohannon RW . Effect of repeated eight-minute muscle loading on the angle of straight-leg raising Phys Ther 1984 64: 491–497

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Magnusson SP et al. Viscoelastic response to repeated static stretching in the human hamstring muscle Scand J Med Sci Sports 1995 5: 342–347

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Magnusson SP, Simonsen EB, Aagaard P, Kjaer M . Biomechanical responses to repeated stretches in human hamstring muscle in vivo Am J Sports Med 1996a 24: 622–628

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Magnusson SP et al. Viscoelastic stress relaxation during static stretch in human skeletal muscle in the absence of EMG activity Scand J Med Sci Sports 1999b 6: 323–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Toft E et al. Passive tension of the ankle before and after stretching Am J Sp Med 1989 17: 489–494

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Duong B, Low M, Moseley A, Herbert R . Time course of stress relaxation in human ankles Clin Biomech 2001 in press

  48. 48

    Light KE, Nuzik S, Personius W, Barstrom A . Low-load prolonged stretch versus high-load brief stretch in treating knee contractures Phys Ther 1984 64: 330–333

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Prosser R . Splinting in the management of proximal interphalangeal joint flexion contracture J Hand Ther 1996 9: 378–386

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Hokken W, Kalkman S, Blanken WC, van Asbeck FW . A dynamic pronation orthosis for the C6 tetraplegic arm Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993 74: 104–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Ada L, Canning A . Anticipating and avoiding muscle shortening. In: Ada L and Canning A (eds) Key Issues in Neurological Physiotherapy Butterworth Heinemann: London 1990

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    O'Dwyer NJ, Ada L, Neilson PD . Spasticity and muscle contracture following stroke Brain 1996 119: 1737–1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Siegler S, Carr E. . A method for discriminating between spasticity and contracture at the ankle joint during locomotion in neurologically impaired persons. Study Institute and Conference: Biomechanics of Human Movement. Formia, Italy 1986

  54. 54

    Harvey LA . Principles of conservative non-orthotic management for a tenodesis grip J Hand Ther 1996 9: 238–242

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Curtin M . An analysis of tetraplegic hand grips Br J Occ Ther 1999 62: 444–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    DiPasquale-Lehnerz P . Orthotic intervention for development of hand function with C-6 tetraplegia Am J Occup Ther 1994 48: 138–144

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Doll U, Maurer-Burkhard B, Spahn B, Fromm B . Functional hand development in tetraplegia Spinal Cord 1998 36: 818–821

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Harvey L, Batty J, Jones R, Crosbie J . Hand function in C6 and C7 tetraplegics Spinal Cord 2001 39: 37–43

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The financial support of the Motor Accident Authority of NSW.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to LA Harvey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harvey, L., Herbert, R. Muscle stretching for treatment and prevention of contracture in people with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 40, 1–9 (2002).

Download citation


  • spinal cord injury
  • contracture
  • stretch


Quick links