QUESTION: Does mechanically assisted walking with body weight support result in more independent walking and is it detrimental to walking speed or capacity in non-ambulatory patients early after stroke? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: Non-ambulatory adult patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation up to 3 months after stroke. INTERVENTION: Mechanically assisted walking (eg, treadmill, electromechanical gait trainer, robotic device, servo-motor) with body weight support (eg, harness with or without handrail, but not handrail alone) versus assisted overground walking of longer than 15 min duration. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving independent walking. Secondary outcomes were walking speed measured as m/s during the 10-m Walk Test and walking capacity measured as distance in m during the 6-min Walk Test. RESULTS: Six studies comprising 549 participants were identified and included in meta-analyses. Mechanically assisted walking with body weight support resulted in more people walking independently at 4 weeks (RD 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30) and at 6 months (RD 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.39), faster walking at 6 months (MD 0.12 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21), and further walking at 6 months (MD 55 m, 95% CI 15 to 96) than assisted overground walking. CONCLUSION: Mechanically assisted walking with body weight support is more effective than overground walking at increasing independent walking in non-ambulatory patients early after stroke. Furthermore, it is not detrimental to walking speed or capacity and clinicians should therefore be confident about implementing this intervention.
QUESTION: Does mechanically assisted walking with body weight support result in more independent walking and is it detrimental to walking speed or capacity in non-ambulatory patients early after stroke? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: Non-ambulatory adult patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation up to 3 months after stroke. INTERVENTION: Mechanically assisted walking (eg, treadmill, electromechanical gait trainer, robotic device, servo-motor) with body weight support (eg, harness with or without handrail, but not handrail alone) versus assisted overground walking of longer than 15 min duration. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving independent walking. Secondary outcomes were walking speed measured as m/s during the 10-m Walk Test and walking capacity measured as distance in m during the 6-min Walk Test. RESULTS: Six studies comprising 549 participants were identified and included in meta-analyses. Mechanically assisted walking with body weight support resulted in more people walking independently at 4 weeks (RD 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.30) and at 6 months (RD 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.39), faster walking at 6 months (MD 0.12 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21), and further walking at 6 months (MD 55 m, 95% CI 15 to 96) than assisted overground walking. CONCLUSION: Mechanically assisted walking with body weight support is more effective than overground walking at increasing independent walking in non-ambulatory patients early after stroke. Furthermore, it is not detrimental to walking speed or capacity and clinicians should therefore be confident about implementing this intervention.
Authors: Nadia Dominici; Urs Keller; Heike Vallery; Lucia Friedli; Rubia van den Brand; Michelle L Starkey; Pavel Musienko; Robert Riener; Grégoire Courtine Journal: Nat Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Charalambos C Charalambous; Heather Shaw Bonilha; Steven A Kautz; Chris M Gregory; Mark G Bowden Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Andrew D Delgado; Miguel X Escalon; Thomas N Bryce; William Weinrauch; Stephanie J Suarez; Allan J Kozlowski Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Juliana M Rodrigues-Baroni; Lucas R Nascimento; Louise Ada; Luci F Teixeira-Salmela Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.377